PURUSHOTTAMBHAI BABARBHAI MERA vs STATE OF GUJARAT

R/SCR.A/656/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240867232024)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 656 of 2025
==========================================================
PURUSHOTTAMBHAI BABARBHAI MERA & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
KUMAR H TRIVEDI(9364) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR RAJENDRA R CHAVDA(10209) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR MANAN MEHTA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 26/10/2026
JUDGMENT
1. By way of this petition, filed under Section 528 of the
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioners have
prayed for quashing and setting aside the FIR, bearing CR No.
11207078240341 of 2024, registered with Kankanpur Police
Station, Panchmahal, under Sections 115(2), 352(, 351(3) and 54
of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (in short, ‘BNS’) and Sections
3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘Atrocities
Act’, herein after).
2. Heard, learned advocate, Mr. Trivedi, appearing for the
petitioners and learned APP, Mr. Mehta, appearing for
Respondent No.1-State. Though duly served, none appeared for
Respondent No.2.
3. At the outset, learned Advocate, Mr. Trivedi, appearing for
the petitioners, under the instructions, submitted that he does
not press this petition qua the offences punishable under the
provisions of the BNS.
Page 1 of 6
Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 20:29:25 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/656/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240867232024)
3.1 In that view of the matter, this petition stands disposed of
qua the provisions of the BNS and now, it will survive only qua
the offences under the Atrocities Act
4. Insofar as the offences punishable under the provisions of
the Atrocities Act are concerned, learned advocate, Mr. Trivedi,
submitted that in the impugned FIR filed by Respondent No.2-
complainant, he himself has stated that accused No.1-Petitioner
No.1 had called him at his clinic, wherein, the derogatory words
about his caste were spoken by the accused persons and the
alleged offence took place. Thus, learned advocate, Mr. Trivedi,
submitted that as, even as per the version of Respondent NO.2 -
the complainant, the alleged incident took place within the four
walls of the clinic of accused No.1-Petitioner No.1, it would not
constitute the offence punishable under the provisions of the
Atrocities Act.
4.1 In support of his submission, learned advocate, Mr.
Trivedi, placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court
in the case of ‘ Karuppudayar Vs. State Rep. by the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Lalgudi Trichy and Others’ ,
reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 215, wherein, the Apex Court
has observed and held as under;
“ 9. A perusal of Section 3(1)(r) of the SC-ST Act would reveal that for
constituting an offence thereunder, it has to be established that the
accused intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a
member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within
Page 2 of 6
Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 20:29:25 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/656/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240867232024)
public view. Similarly, for constituting an offence under Section 3(1)(s)
of the SC-ST Act, it will be necessary that the accused abuses any
member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in
any place within public view.
10. The term “any place within public view” initially came up for
consideration before this Court in the case of Swaran Singh v. State
through Standing Counsel. This Court in the case of Hitesh Verma v.
State of Uttarakhand referred to Swaran Singh (supra) and reiterated
the legal position as under:
“14. Another key ingredient of the provision is insult or
intimidation in “any place within public view”. What is to be
regarded as “place in public view” had come up for
consideration before this Court in the judgment reported as
Swaran Singh v. State [Swaran Singh v. State, (2008) 8 SCC 435 :
(2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 527]. The Court had drawn distinction
between the expression “public place” and “in any place within
public view”. It was held that if an offence is committed outside
the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be
seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary
wall, then the lawn would certainly be a place within the public
view. On the contrary, if the remark is made inside a building, but
some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or
friends) then it would not be an offence since it is not in the
public view (sic) [Ed. : This sentence appears to be contrary to
what is stated below in the extract from Swaran Singh, (2008) 8
SCC 435, at p. 736d-e, and in the application of this principle in
para 15, below:“Also, even if the remark is made inside a
Page 3 of 6
Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 20:29:25 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/656/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240867232024)
building, but some members of the public are there (not merely
relatives or friends) then also it would be an offence since it is in
the public view.”]. The Court held as under : (SCC pp. 443-44,
para 28) “28. It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod Nagar,
the first informant, was insulted by Appellants 2 and 3 (by calling
him a “chamar”) when he stood near the car which was parked
at the gate of the premises. In our opinion, this was certainly a
place within public view, since the gate of a house is certainly a
place within public view. It could have been a different matter
had the alleged offence been committed inside a building, and
also was not in the public view. However, if the offence is
committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house,
and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane
outside the boundary wall, the lawn would certainly be a place
within the public view. Also, even if the remark is made inside a
building, but some members of the public are there (not merely
relatives or friends) then also it would be an offence since it is in
the public view. We must, therefore, not confuse the expression
“place within public view” with the expression “public place”. A
place can be a private place but yet within the public view. On
the other hand, a public place would ordinarily mean a place
which is owned or leased by the Government or the municipality
(or other local body) or gaon sabha or an instrumentality of the
State, and not by private persons or private bodies.”
(emphasis in original)”
11. It could thus be seen that, to be a place ‘within public view’, the
place should be open where the members of the public can witness or
Page 4 of 6
Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 20:29:25 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/656/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240867232024)
hear the utterance made by the accused to the victim. If the alleged
offence takes place within the four corners of the wall where members of
the public are not present, then it cannot be said that it has taken place
at a place within public view. ”
4.2 By making the above submissions, it was prayed that this
petition be allowed qua the provisions of the Atrocities Act.
5. Learned APP, Mr. Mehta, produced on record the report of
the Dy.S.P. SC-ST Cell, Panchmahal, Dated: 26.10.2026, and
strongly opposed this petition and prayed that the same may be
dismissed.
6. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and
having perused the impugned FIR, it emerges that the
complainant – Respondent No.2 in the impugned FIR has stated
that on the date of the alleged incident, i.e. on 13.08.2024, while
he was going to his home at village Khajuri, Petitioner No.1 met
him on the way and when Respondent No.2-complainant asked
him as to why did he told one Vikas that he had stolen earth
from his farm and in reply to that accused No.1 asked him to
come to his clinic. Therefore, the complainant-Respondent No.2
went to the clinic of accused No.1. On reaching there,
Respondent No.2-complainant found that there were a few
patients and therefore, he waited till accused No.1 attended the
patients. After the patients left the clinic, Respondent No.2-
complainant and accused No.1 had an argument and thereafter,
accused No.2 also allegedly came there and took the side of
accused No.1 and thereafter, the alleged offence took place.
Page 5 of 6
Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 20:29:25 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/656/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240867232024)
Thus, even as per the version of the complainant-Respondent
No.2, the alleged offence took place within the four walls of the
clinic of accused No.1 and at that time, except, the complainant-
Respondent No.2 and accused – petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 no one
else was present there. Therefore, it cannot be said that the
alleged offence took place either within the public view or at a
public place and hence, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of ‘ Karuppudayar’ (Supra), the
allegations leveled against accused-petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 qua
the offences under the Atrocities Act cannot be sustained and
the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.
7. In the result, this petition is partly allowed and the
impugned FIR, bearing CR No. 11207078240341 of 2024,
registered with Kankanpur Police Station, Panchmahal, is
quashed and set aside qua the offences punishable under
Sections 115(2), 352(, 351(3) and 54 of the BNS qua the present
petitioners, only.
7.2 Further, in view of the fact that the petitioners have been
protected by the order of the Coordinate Bench of this Court
dated 24.01.2025, the said interim protection is extended for
further period of one month from today, for enabling the
petitioners to take bail qua the offences under the BNS Act.
Direct service is permitted.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
UMESH/-
Page 6 of 6
Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 20:29:25 IST 2026