Gujarat High Court quashes FIR against lawyer, finding it a counterblast after he was assaulted while livestreaming an alleged traffic racket

The petitioner sought quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. of an FIR registered at Sarthana Police Station under Sections 332, 353, 385 and 427 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(u) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The FIR alleged that the petitioner abused traffic personnel using caste-related words, demanded money from a TRB supervisor under threat of making videos viral, obstructed official duties, assaulted the supervisor and damaged his uniform.

The petitioner contended that he had been livestreaming alleged unlawful conduct by traffic personnel and was assaulted by a TRB supervisor; a counter-FIR alleging, among other offences, attempt to murder was registered against police/TRB personnel.

The State opposed quashing, submitting that the FIR disclosed cognizable offences and that the petitioner’s defences should be tested at trial.

1. Whether the FIR and surrounding circumstances disclosed a prima facie case for the alleged IPC offences, or whether the proceedings were liable to be quashed as improbable, mala fide or an abuse of process.

2. Whether the allegations satisfied the ingredients of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(u) of the SC/ST Act.

Section 482 Cr.P.C. preserves the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

Under State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, proceedings may be quashed, among other circumstances, where allegations are inherently improbable or manifestly mala fide.

The Court also relied on Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P., observing that, where mala fides are alleged, the Court may consider the attending circumstances and investigation material, and need not confine itself to the FIR’s wording alone.

The Court considered the statutory ingredients of Sections 332, 353, 385 and 427 IPC, and held that Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(u) of the SC/ST Act require, respectively, intentional caste-based insult or intimidation in a place within public view, and conduct promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will against the SC/ST community as a class.

The Court treated the timing of the impugned FIR, the counter-FIR against the police/TRB personnel and the livestream material as supporting the petitioner’s claim that the case was a retaliatory counter-blast.

It considered the extortion allegation inherently improbable in light of the petitioner’s public livestreaming and found the alleged caste-related words insufficient, in the context of the dispute over traffic enforcement, to establish caste-based humiliation or promotion of hatred against the community.

It further concluded that the material before it did not establish the necessary force or hurt for Sections 353 and 332 IPC, the required elements of extortion under Section 385, or intentional mischief causing the requisite damage under Section 427; it relied in part on the video material and the petitioner’s injuries in reaching those conclusions.

It held that continuation of the prosecution would amount to an abuse of process and that the case fell within the relevant categories in Bhajan Lal.