JITENDRA NILESHBHAI HARSODA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants - original accused persons seek to invoke the inherent powers of this Court, praying for quashing of the First Information Report bearing C.R. No.I171 of 2015 registered at the City 'C' Division Police Station, Jamnagar for the offence punishable under Sections 395, 354B, 294(b) and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) It appears from the materials on record that one Manjulaben Fulchandbhai Patel, a resident of Jamnagar, lodged a First Information Report at the police station concerned stating that she is an elected councilor of the Jamnagar Municipal Corporation. On the date of the alleged incident, a programme of 'Ras Garba' was organised. The Minister of State, namely, Vasuben Trivedi was to preside over the said function of 'Ras Garba'. Many other dignitaries were present in the function, including the Mayor of the Corporation, the President of the City BJP, the Chairman of the Standing Committee, etc. At that point of time, a mob of about ten to twelve persons came over there and started creating trouble. They wanted the programme of 'Ras Garba' to be wound up. They started chanting slogans of 'Jay Sardar, Jay Patidar'. They started shouting that stop the drama. The entire altercation was being recorded by the son of the first informant in his camera. It is alleged that the accused persons herein took away the camera mobile phone from the hand of the son of the first informant valued at Rs. 15,000/and one Atul Bhandari (co-accused) started hurling abuses and caught hold of the right hand of the first informant and told her to come with him. It is alleged that only with a view that create recuse in the function, the accused persons behavioured in a highhanded manner, and thereby committed the offence. It is the case of the first informant that the accused persons created recuse only with a view to pressurise the government to release of those persons, who are arrested in the agitation for reservation and also for claiming reservation.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record, the only question that falls for my consideration is whether any offence of dacoity punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and offence of outraging the modesty of a woman punishable under Section 354D of the Indian Penal Code could be said to have been made out.