MAHESHBHAI CHANABHAI KHUNTversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     R/CR.MA/7479/2020                             JUDGMENT DATED: 09/06/2026




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

      R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
                    FIR/ORDER) NO. 7479 of 2020


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
==========================================================

             Approved for Reporting               Yes         No

==========================================================
                     MAHESHBHAI CHANABHAI KHUNT & ANR.
                                   Versus
                          STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
RAFIK LOKHANDWALA(5590) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR SANDIP M PATEL(5649) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
JAY MEHTA APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

                              Date : 09/06/2026

                              ORAL JUDGMENT


1.       By way of the present application, the Applicant has prayed
for quashing and setting aside the complaint/FIR being C.R. No.
11213016200424 dated 30.04.2020, registered with Gondal
Taluka Police Station, District Rajkot (Rural), for the offences
punishable under Sections 448, 323, 504 and 114 of the IPC as
well as Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989, and all consequential, incidental and further proceedings
arising therefrom.


2.       Learned Advocate Mr. Rafik Lokhandwala would submit


                                  Page 1 of 6
  R/CR.MA/7479/2020                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/06/2026




that:-


2.1      The Complainant herein in the impugned FIR was removed
from her post of Sarpanch by the Taluka Development Officer,
Gondal      vide      order   dated    10.06.2019   which    came       to       be
challenged before this Court by way of Special Civil Application
No. 9932/2019 which also came to be rejected.


2.2      It is further argued that on 24.04.2020, the applicant no. 1
herein lodged an FIR before the Gondal Taluka Police Station
bearing FIR NO. 11213016200379 for offences punishable under
Section 506(2) read with Section 114 of the IPC against the son of
the Complainant namely Praful Solanki and one Kamleshbhai
Gamara.


2.3      It is further contended that on 26.04.2020, a representation
against Prafulbhai Mulajibhai Solanki and others was preferred
before the Police Sub-Inspector, apprehending that a false
complaint would be lodged against the applicant under the
Atrocities Act. It is also contended that an application came to be
preferred to the PSI, DYSP and SP, Rajkot, inter alia, contending
that he was not present on the day of the alleged incident and
had also handed over proof to that effect. Thus, it is argued that
only out of vengeance, and in view of the removal of the
Complainant from the post of Sarpanch pursuant to the no-
confidence motion, the present complaint has been lodged with a
view to ensuring that the Applicant is falsely implicated. Thus, it
is argued that the present application be allowed.


2.4      It is further contended that even if the FIR is considered as


                                      Page 2 of 6
     R/CR.MA/7479/2020                         JUDGMENT DATED: 09/06/2026




it is, it is evident that the provisions of Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s)
and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are not attracted since the
alleged incident did not occur at a place within public view, and
thus, it is prayed that the present petition be allowed.




3.       Learned Advocate Ms. Avanika Panchal for Mr. Sandip Patel
and learned APP for the Respondent State would submit that :-


3.1      The complaint itself discloses the names of Govindbhai
Bhundiya and Navghanbhai Bhundiya, who have witnessed the
said incident. Therefore, when there is a prima facie case against
the Applicant, more particularly, when no allegations in the
representations qua the present complainant, Gangaben, are
referred to, it cannot be said that the applicant is falsely
implicated in the FIR.


3.2      It is further argued that the factum of giving blows to the
complainant can be tested on the anvil of the evidence that
would be led during the trial; however, it cannot be said that
merely because the parties are at loggerheads, the complaint
falls within the realm of vengeance, and thus, it is argued that
the petition be rejected.


4.       Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties.


5.       This Court has gone through the documents appended with
the Petition, more particularly the FIR lodged by the present
applicant, the representation, the complaint under the Atrocities


                                Page 3 of 6
     R/CR.MA/7479/2020                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 09/06/2026




Act lodged against the present applicant, and the representation
with regard to absence of applicant when the alleged incident
had allegedly taken place.


6.       The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Naresh Aneja
Vs. State of UP reported in (2025) 2 SCC 604, has held that
in para 18 as under:-

           “18. It is well settled that when considering an
           application under Section 482 CRPC, the Court cannot
           conduct a mini trial but instead is to be satisfied that
           prima facie the offences as alleged are made out. To
           put it differently, it is to be seen, without undertaking a
           minute examination of the record, that there is some
           substance in the allegations made which could meet
           the threshold of statutory language.”


         In view of the above settled principle of law, this Court is
not venturing into a mini trial at the stage of quashing.


7.       As far as Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled          Tribes   (Prevention    of     Atrocities   Act,     1989)        is
concerned, the same reads as follows:-

           “3(1)(r):- intentionally insults or intimidates with intent
           to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
           Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;”


As far as Section 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled          Tribes   (Prevention    of     Atrocities   Act,     1989)        is
concerned, the same reads as follows:-

           “3(1)(s): abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or
           a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any placewithin
           public view;”



                                    Page 4 of 6
     R/CR.MA/7479/2020                             JUDGMENT DATED: 09/06/2026




         Thus, for attracting the provisions of Sections 3(1)(r) and
3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989), it cannot be said that the
alleged offence was committed in public view, as the FIR itself
states that the complainant was alone in the house when she was
allegedly taken to task and manhandled.


8.        Learned Advocate for the Applicant relied on the judgment
in the case of Karuppudayar Vs. State Rep. By the Deputy
Suprintendent            of   Police,   Lalgudi   Trichy     and      others
reported in (2025) 1 SCR 1381. Considering the ratio laid
down in the aforesaid judgment and tested on the factual aspects
as stated by the complainant itself, it clearly transpires that the
provisions of Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act,
1989) are not attracted, inasmuch as the incident of insulting or
intimidating with an intention to humiliate or abusing had taken
place within the four corners of the residence. Thus, applying the
ratio laid down in the case of Karuppudayar (Supra), Sections 3(1)
(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989) are quashed and set aside.


9.       As far as Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 is concerned:
the same reads as under:

           “3(2)(v): commits any offence under the Indian
           Penal Code punishable with imprisonment for a term
           of ten years or more against a person or property
           knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled
           Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs
           to such member, shall be punishable with



                                    Page 5 of 6
       R/CR.MA/7479/2020                                                                      JUDGMENT DATED: 09/06/2026




                 imprisonment for life and with fine;


              On perusal of the said section, it transpires that the other
  sections invoked against the present Applicant are Sections 448,
  323, 504 and 114 of the IPC, which are not punishable with
  imprisonment for a term of ten years or more. Under such
  circumstances, the said section is also not attracted and Section
  3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
  (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989) is also quashed and set aside.


  11.         The investigating officer is at liberty to proceed further qua
  the other offences in the FIR in accordance with law. It is made
  clear that neither the investigating agency nor the Trial Court
  shall be influenced by the findings given by this Court for
  quashing and setting aside the provisions of the Atrocities Act.


  12.         In view of the above, the captioned matter is partly allowed.
  Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.



                                                                                                           (P. M. RAVAL, J)
  MMP


Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE TWO CLASS TWO, at High Court of Gujarat on 09/06/2026
15:17:27




                                                              Page 6 of 6