MADHULIKA SAMANTA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application has been filed seeking quashing of the First Information Report dated 25.12.2016 being Cr.No.II-640 of 2016 registered at Karelibaug Police Station, Vadodara City for the offences punishable under Sections 166 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC) and Section 3(1) (p,q,r,u,zc) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (the Atrocities Act).

(2.) The brief contents of the prolix F.I.R. are incorporated a under:

(3.) Learned advocate Mr.Sabyasachi Chatterjee for learned advocate Mr. Dhruv Toliya, appearing for the applicants, has submitted that the contents of the F.I.R. do not reveal that the offences under the IPC or the Atrocities Act are committed by the applicants. He has submitted that the allegations made in the F.I.R are made by the first informant due to holding of the departmental inquiry against him. It is submitted that the first informant has proceeded on leave without informing the head of the Department i.e. applicant No.1. He has further stated that vide letter dated 20.10.2014, he informed the Superintendent Archaeologist that he is leaving since his wife had met with a scooter accident and got injuries. It is submitted that the work which was assigned to him was very important in nature and he should have left only after getting sanction to leave. It is submitted that the complaint with regard to his seating arrangement in front of the toilet is concerned the same is false since his table and chair were placed near the Sedimentology Lab, which is adjoining to the toilet. He has submitted that two other staff members were also asked to sit in the same room and the ladies toilet is attached to the lab which is only meant to use by the Superintendent Archaeologist. Therefore, under no stretch of imagination, it can be said to be a derogatory behaviour.