ANILBHAI RANCHODBHAI BARAIYA vs STATE OF GUJARAT

R/SCR.A/13689/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2026
(GJHC240717602025)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 13689 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 47 of 2026

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER

==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
ANILBHAI RANCHODBHAI BARAIYA & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR YATIN SONI(868) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MS MARIYA M DALAL(3957) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
SUJAY J ADESHRA(9325) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
CHINTAN K GANDHI(8600) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR ASHIT B BHATT(11099) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS.MONALI BHATT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER

Date : 28/10/2026

JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr.Chintan
Gandhi waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of
respondent no.2 and learned APP Ms.Monali Bhatt
waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent-
State.
2. The present petitions are filed under Article 14, 21 and
226 of Constitution of India read with section 528 of
Page 1 of 14
Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 04 00:00:43 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/13689/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2026
(GJHC240717602025)
BNSS, 2023 seeking quashment of the FIR being I-CR
No.11198067250886/2025 dated 13.09.2025 registered
Vartej Police Station, Bhavnagar.
3. At the outset it is submitted by learned advocate
Mr.Yatin Soni that the petitioner does not press this
application except for the offence punishable under
Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of
Atrocity Act), 1989 with liberty to file afresh. In that
background this Court has examined the case qua the
offence of Atrocity Act only.
4. The factual matrix of the case is as under:
4.1. On 13.09.2025 one Dhanjibhai Kalubhai rathod, who
is the complainant, lodged an FIR alleging that on
12.09.2025, in the evening hours, he had gone to the fair
price shop owned by the present petitioner namely
Anilbhai Baraiya in Special Criminal Application No.
13689/2025. As the complainant had earlier made
complaint, reporting less quantity of ration goods, before
the Mamlatdar as well as the Collector, it is alleged that
keeping that grudge in mind, the petitioner no.1 and 2
and two other unidentified person beat up the
complainant and his son with pipe, wooden stick as well
Page 2 of 14
Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 04 00:00:43 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/13689/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2026
(GJHC240717602025)
as gave kick and fist blows, further used abusive
language and threatened the complainant from lodging
any further complaints. It is alleged that complainant
and his son were then taken to the hospital by relatives
and based on the above allegation, on the next day of the
date of incident, the impugned FIR is filed.
5. Heard learned advocate Mr.Yatin Soni for the petitioner
and learned advocate Mr.Chintan Gandhi for the
respondent no.2 as well as learned APP Ms.Monali Bhatt
for the respondent-State.
5.1. Learned advocate Mr.Yatin Soni submits that FIR does
not disclose the prima facie case under the Atrocity Act
and though there is no allegation made in the impugned
FIR qua offence under the Atrocity Act however,
subsequently, on the basis of the statement of the
complainant which is recorded by the Investigating
Officer, the charges of Atrocity Act were added.
Referring the provision of section 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v-a)
of the Atrocity Act, it is submitted by learned advocate
Mr.Yatin Soni that the FIR is silent about any incident in
public view as it is mandatory requirement under the
law for attracting the said provision. Merely vague
Page 3 of 14
Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 04 00:00:43 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/13689/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2026
(GJHC240717602025)
allegation of abuse without context of caste or public
view cannot attract the alleged charges of atrocity act
unless it is alleged that there is an intention to insult or
intimidate or use abusive word to the member of
Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe that too in any place
within public view. It is submitted that in the entire FIR
there is no whisper that petitioner had uttered any
abusive words to insult or humiliate the complainant and
even there is no material which satisfy the requirement
of public view. It is submitted that though FIR is lodged
on the next date of the date of incident however, that
also is lacking the allegation with regard to the Atrocity
Cct. It is submitted that the Schedule Case and Schedule
Tribe (Prevention of Atrocity Act) is a special enactment,
which requires strict compliance with its statutory
ingredients. Unless there is a clear allegation of insult,
humiliation or abuse directed at the complainant based
on his caste and that too in place within public view, no
offence under the said Act can be said to be made out. It
is submitted by learned advocate Mr.Yatin Soni that
except the allegation relating to the Atrocity Act, all
other offence are triable by the learned Court of
Page 4 of 14
Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 04 00:00:43 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/13689/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2026
(GJHC240717602025)
Magistrate and only to view the dispute in a different
colour, these allegations of Atrocity Act are made. In that
background, it is prayed to quash the charges relating to
the Atrocity Act, by allowing this petition.
5.2. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Chintan Gandhi,
appearing for the respondent, has submitted that against
the order dated 01.12.2025 passed by this Court
granting interim relief in staying the impugned
proceedings, the respondent has approached the Apex
Court by filling Special Leave to Appeal being Criminal
Application No.575 of 2026 and the Apex Court, while
dismissing the petition, directed the Court to expedite
the hearing of the petition vide order dated 16.01.2026.
It is submitted that the complainant was elected as
Sarpanch in the village Lakhanka and the accused was
running ration shop in that village and as the respondent
no.2 is a Sarpanch, the accused was known to the
complainant since long back. The complainant has raised
the grievance before the Mamlatdar and the Collector
with regard to providing less quantity of ration and
therefore, the necessary inquiry was also held in that
regard. It is submitted that there are specific averments
Page 5 of 14
Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 04 00:00:43 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/13689/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2026
(GJHC240717602025)
made in the FIR that at the time of the incident, two
nephews of the petitioner were also present who are the
petitioner in the Special Criminal Application No.47 of
2026. It is submitted that all the accused played active
role and have caused injuries to the complainant, in that
background no interference at this stage is required to
be made and the present petition is required to be
dismissed.
5.3. Learned APP Ms.Monali Bhatt has placed on record
the report submitted by the Investigating Officer dated
24.06.2026 stating that at the time of lodging of FIR, no
specific allegations were made with regard to the
offence under the Atrocity Act. It is submitted that
thereafter the statement of the witness were recorded
and the petitioners were arrested and thereafter charge-
sheet is filed before the learned competent Court on
12.01.2026. It is submitted that initially the FIR was filed
against two named accused and two unknown person,
and thereafter on interrogation of the arrested accused,
th
the names of 5 accused was disclosed. In that
background, it is submitted by learned APP Ms.Monali
Bhatt that no interference, at this stage, be made.
Page 6 of 14
Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 04 00:00:43 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/13689/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2026
(GJHC240717602025)
6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned
advocate for the respective parties and on referring the
allegations made by in the impugned FIR which is
lodged on the next day of the incident, making allegation
that as the complainant has made a complaint before the
Mamlatdar and Collector against the petitioner no.1 in
Special Criminal Application No.13689 of 2025, keeping
that grudge in mind, the son of the complainant was
assaulted by the accused no.1 and 2 with the help of two
nephews by stick and pipe as well as kick and fist blows.
The FIR was lodged for the offences punishable under
section 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v-a) of Atrocity as alleged
however, no specific allegations are made pertaining to
the offence of the Atrocity Act. It appears that by giving
the further statement, the complainant has tried to fill
up the lacuna and stated in his statement that all the
accused have used abusive words relating to the caste
against the complainant.
6.1. It is alleged that the offence is committed at the shop
of the present petitioner. As per the averments made in
the FIR the offence was witnessed by one Mansukhbhai
Patel however, the statement of said Mansukhbhai is not
Page 7 of 14
Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 04 00:00:43 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/13689/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2026
(GJHC240717602025)
part of the investigating papers. The investigating officer
had relied on the statement of two witnesses namely
Pareshbhai Babubhai Chekhaliya and Lalabhai
Sukhabhai Balya. On referring the about statements, it
appears that Lalabhai Sutabhai Dalia, whose statement
was recorded on 14.09.2026 states that he has not seen
the incident but on asking to Dhanjibhai, he disclosed
the offence. Similarly, Pareshbhai also has made a
statement on the same line, stating that he ran away
from the place and on the next day he only heard with
regard to the incident. Additionally, in the FIR, accept
the presence of one Mansukhbhai, the complainant did
not refer the name of these two witnesses. The FIR
initially does not refer any specific allegation with
regard to the offence punishable under the Atrocity Act
and statement of the witness named referred in FIR is
not part of the charge-sheet.
7. At this stage, it is important to refer the Sections 3(1)(r),
3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v-a) of the Atrocity Act, which are
reproduced hereinbelow:
Section 3(1) in The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
(1)Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
Page 8 of 14
Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 04 00:00:43 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/13689/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2026
(GJHC240717602025)
Tribe,—
(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;
( s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by
caste name in any place within public view;
Section 3(2)(va) in The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
(va)commits any offence specified in the Schedule, 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 such punishment as specified under the
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) for such offences and shall also be
liable to fine;
8. At this stage, reference of the decision rendered by the
Apex Court in the case of Hitesh Verma Vs State of
Uttarakhand and Anr. reported in (2020) 10 SSC 710
is required to be made wherein it is held that expression
in any place within the public view does not mean
merely place accessible to the public but require the
presence of independent members and interested
witnesses does not satisfy this requirement. It is held by
the Apex Court that dispute occurring in private place or
whereby member of public is not present that does not
attract the offence of Atrocity Act which is alleged. The
relevant paragraphs are reproduced hereinbelow:
10. The Act was enacted to improve the social economic conditions
of the vulnerable sections of the society as they have been subjected
Page 9 of 14
Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 04 00:00:43 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/13689/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2026
(GJHC240717602025)
to various offences such as indignities, humiliations and harassment.
They have been deprived of life and property as well. The object of
the Act is thus to punish the violators who inflict indignities,
humiliations and harassment and commit the offence as defined under
Section 3 of the Act. The Act is thus intended to punish the acts of
the upper caste against the vulnerable section of the society for the
reason that they belong to a particular community.
11. It may be stated that the charge-sheet filed is for an offence
under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. The said section stands substituted
by Act No. 1 of 2016 w.e.f. 26.1.2016. The substituted corresponding
provision is Section 3(1)(r) which reads as under:
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;"
12. The basic ingredients of the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the
Act can be classified as "1) intentionally insults or intimidates with
intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
Tribe and 2) in any place within public view".
13. The offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act would indicate the
ingredient of intentional insult and intimidation with an intent to
humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. All
insults or intimidations to a person will not be an offence under the
Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of victim
belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The object of the
Act is to improve the socio-economic conditions of the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes as they are denied number of civil
rights. Thus, an offence under the Act would be made out when a
member of the vulnerable section of the Society is subjected to
indignities, humiliations and harassment. The assertion of title over
the land by either of the parties is not due to either the indignities,
humiliations or harassment. Every citizen has a right to avail their
remedies in accordance with law. Therefore, if the appellant or his
family members have invoked jurisdiction of the civil court, or that
respondent No.2 has invoked the jurisdiction of the civil court, then
the parties are availing their remedies in accordance with the
procedure established by law. Such action is not for the reason that
respondent No.2 is member of Scheduled Caste.
18. Therefore, offence under the Act is not established merely on the
fact that the informant is a member of Scheduled Caste unless there
Page 10 of 14
Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 04 00:00:43 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/13689/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2026
(GJHC240717602025)
is an intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe for the reason that the victim belongs to such caste.
In the present case, the parties are litigating over possession of the
land. The allegation of hurling of abuses is against a person who
claims title over the property. If such person happens to be a
Scheduled Caste, the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act is not
made out.
19. This Court in a judgment reported as Dr. Subhash Kashinath
Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. 7 issued certain directions in
respect of investigations required to be conducted under the Act. In a
review filed by the Union against the said judgment, this Court in a
judgment reported as Union of India v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.8
reviewed the directions issued by this Court and held that if there is
a false and unsubstantiated FIR, 7 (2018) 6 SCC 454 8 (2020) 4 SCC
761 the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code can be invoked.
The Court held as under
"52. There is no presumption that the members of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes may misuse the provisions of law as a
class and it is not resorted to by the members of the upper castes
or the members of the elite class. For lodging a false report, it
cannot be said that the caste of a person is the cause. It is due to
the human failing and not due to the caste factor. Caste is not
attributable to such an act. On the other hand, members of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes due to backwardness hardly
muster the courage to lodge even a first information report, much
less, a false one. In case it is found to be false/unsubstantiated, it
may be due to the faulty investigation or for other various reasons
including human failings irrespective of caste factor. There may be
certain cases which may be false that can be a ground for
interference by the Court, but the law cannot be changed due to
such misuse. In such, a situation, it can be taken care of in
proceeding under Section 482 CrPC."
20. Later, while examining the constitutionality of the provisions of the
Amending Act (Central Act No. 27 of 2018), this Court in a judgment
reported as Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India & Ors.9 held that
proceedings can be quashed under Section 482 of the Code. It was held
as under:
"12. The Court can, in exceptional cases, exercise power under
Section 482 CrPC for quashing the cases to prevent misuse of
Page 11 of 14
Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 04 00:00:43 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/13689/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2026
(GJHC240717602025)
provisions on settled parameters, as already observed while deciding
the review petitions. The legal position is clear, and no argument to
the contrary has been raised."
21. In Gerige Pentaiah, one of the arguments raised was non-disclosure
of the caste of the accused but the facts were almost 9 (2020) 4 SCC
727 similar as there was civil dispute between parties pending and the
allegation was that the accused has called abuses in the name of the
caste of the victim. The High Court herein has misread the judgment of
this Court in Ashabai Machindra Adhagale as it was not a case about
the caste of the victim but the fact that the accused was belonging to
upper caste was not mentioned in the FIR. The High Court of Bombay
had quashed the proceedings for the reason that the caste of the
accused was not mentioned in the FIR, therefore, the offence under
Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act is not made out. In an appeal against the
decision of the Bombay High Court, this Court held that this will be
the matter of investigation as to whether the accused either belongs to
or does not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Therefore,
the High Court erred in law to dismiss the quashing petition relying
upon later larger Bench judgment.
9. This Court has also referred the decision of the Apex
Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Vaishya v. State
of U.P. reported in (2023) 17 SCC 615, wherein the
Apex Court has held as under:
15. The first FIR, registered at the instance of the complainant, is
silent about the place of occurrence and who, being a member of the
public, was present when the appellant is alleged to have hurled
caste related abuses at the complainant. However, on a reading of
the second FIR registered at the behest of the appellant, it appears
that the incident took place at the house of the appellant.
16. The first question that calls for an answer is whether it was at a
place within public view that the appellant hurled caste related
abuses at the complainant with an intent to insult or intimidate with
an intent to humiliate him. From the charge-sheet dated 21-1-2016
filed by the IO, it appears that the prosecution would seek to rely on
the evidence of three witnesses to drive home the charge against the
appellant of committing offences under Sections 323 and 504IPC and
Page 12 of 14
Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 04 00:00:43 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/13689/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2026
(GJHC240717602025)
Section 3(1)(x), SC/ST Act. These three witnesses are none other than
the complainant, his wife and their son. Neither the first FIR nor the
charge-sheet refers to the presence of a fifth individual (a member of
the public) at the place of occurrence (apart from the appellant, the
complainant, his wife and their son). Since the utterances, if any,
made by the appellant were not “in any place within public view”,
the basic ingredient for attracting Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act
was missing/absent. We, therefore, hold that at the relevant point of
time of the incident (of hurling of caste related abuse at the
complainant by the appellant), no member of the public was present.
17. That apart, assuming arguendo that the appellant had hurled
caste related abuses at the complainant with a view to insult or
humiliate him, the same does not advance the case of the
complainant any further to bring it within the ambit of Section 3(1)
(x) of the SC/ST Act. We have noted from the first FIR as well as the
charge-sheet that the same makes no reference to the utterances of
the appellant during the course of verbal altercation or to the caste
to which the complainant belonged, except for the
allegation/observation that caste-related abuses were hurled. The
legislative intent seems to be clear that every insult or intimidation
for humiliation to a person would not amount to an offence under
Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act unless, of course, such insult or
intimidation is targeted at the victim because of he being a member
of a particular Scheduled Caste or Tribe. If one calls another an idiot
(bewaqoof) or a fool (murkh) or a thief (chor) in any place within
public view, this would obviously constitute an act intended to insult
or humiliate by user of abusive or offensive language. Even if the
same be directed generally to a person, who happens to be a
Scheduled Caste or Tribe, per se, it may not be sufficient to attract
Section 3(1)(x) unless such words are laced with casteist remarks.
18. Since Section 18 of the SC/ST Act bars invocation of the court's
jurisdiction under Section 438CrPC and having regard to the
overriding effect of the SC/ST Act over other laws, it is desirable that
before an accused is subjected to a trial for alleged commission of
offence under Section 3(1)(x), the utterances made by him in any
place within public view are outlined, if not in the FIR (which is not
required to be an encyclopaedia of all facts and events), but at least
in the charge-sheet (which is prepared based either on statements of
witnesses recorded in course of investigation or otherwise) so as to
Page 13 of 14
Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 04 00:00:43 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/13689/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2026
(GJHC240717602025)
enable the court to ascertain whether the charge-sheet makes out a
case of an offence under the SC/ST Act having been committed for
forming a proper opinion in the conspectus of the situation before it,
prior to taking cognizance of the offence .
10. Considering the overall circumstances, more
particularly, in absence of any allegations of offence
pertaining to the Atrocity Act in the FIR which is lodged
after one day, as well as the material collected during
the investigation, in the opinion of this Court,
continuation of proceedings under the Atrocity Act is
nothing but abuse of process of law as per the decision
of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs.
Bhajanlal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604. In that
background, the impugned FIR qua the offence of
sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v-a) of the Atrocity Act
requires interference, hence, this petition is allowed to
the above extent.
11. Resultantly, this petition is allowed to the above extent.
Rule is made absolute to the above extent.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
ARCHANA S. PILLAI
Page 14 of 14
Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 04 00:00:43 IST 2026