SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Akil Rafikbapu Kadri & vs State Of Gujarat & on 15 September, 2017

R/CR.MA/23064/2017 ORDER


23064 of 2017

STATE OF GUJARAT 1….Respondent(s)

MS. KRUTI M SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 – 2
MR LR PUJARI, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1


Date : 15/09/2017


1. Rule.  Learned APP waives service.

2. By an order dated 29.5.2017 passed in Criminal Misc. Application 
No. 12513 of 2017 the petitioners were admitted to bail subject to the 
condition   inter­alia   that   they   should   mark   their   presence   with   the 
concerned police station on every Monday of each calendar month for a 
period of three months and thereafter alternate Monday for a period of 
six months  between 11:00  a.m. and 2:00 p.m.   The said condition  is 
sought   to   be   modified   effectively   seeking   an   exemption   of   recording 
petitioners’   presence with   the concerned police station on the ground 
that   subsequent  to  the   above­referred  order,  another  complaint   being 
C.R. No. I – 70 of 2017  in the Karanj Police Station of Ahmedabad City 
now alleging gang rape against the petitioners, by the same prosecutrix 
has been lodged on 1.9.2017 invoking the provisions of the Atrocities 

Page 1 of 5

HC-NIC Page 1 of 5 Created On Sat Sep 16 00:54:40 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/23064/2017 ORDER

Act as well.

3. Learned counsel for the  petitioners  has invited attention  of this 
Court to the observations made in the order dated 24.7.2017 passed in 
Criminal  Misc. Application  No. 16178  of  2017     in  the  case  of  Ashraf 
Rafikbapu Kadri  v. State of Gujarat and one  respondent; who has been 
arrayed as co­accused alongwith the  petitioners  in C.R. No. I – 46 of 
2016 registered at Karanj Police Station, Ahmedabad City, alleging the 
offences   inter­alia   under   Section   376   of   Indian   Penal   Code   and   the 
provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of 
Atrocities) Act, 1989.  The observations made by this Court in the said 
order read thus:

“3.   Having   considered   the   rival   contentions,   it 
appears  that  the prosecutrix   aged 35  years  as on 
the   date   of   lodgment   of   the   complaint   i.e. 
4.8.2016   is   a   divorcee   having   a   child   aged   15 
years; admits that she had fallen in love with the 
petitioner, and that one day in February 2016, she 
had  established  the  consensual  physical  relations 
with the petitioner in a hotel at Lal Darwaja. She 
further claims that a video clipping of her sexual 
acts   with   the   petitioner   were   shot   by   the 
petitioner   and   on   the   strength   of   such   videos 
clipping,   she   was   being   black   mailed   by   the 
petitioner   for   sexual   favours.   She   claims   that 
said   clippings   were   forwarded   to   her   mobile.   It 
appears  that  such shooting  of the  film  could  not 
be   fortified   upon   forensic   examination   of   her 
mobile phone wherefrom only some photographs which 
are   not   even   incriminating   in   nature   could   be 
retrieved.   Furthermore,   prima   facie   this   Court 
fails   to   understand   as   to   why   the   accused   will 
have  any  occasion  to  blackmail   the victim  on  the 
strength   of   such   blue   film   when   she   had 
voluntarily   accompanied   the   accused   and 
voluntarily established sexual relations with him. 

Prima   facie,   this   Court   is   of   the   opinion   that 
there was no occasion for the petitioner to adopt 
above   method   for   compelling   the   prosecutrix   to 
give   herself   into   his   sexual   demands   as   she   had 

Page 2 of 5

HC-NIC Page 2 of 5 Created On Sat Sep 16 00:54:40 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/23064/2017 ORDER

voluntarily  established  sexual   relations   with the 

Under   the   above   circumstances,   the   prosecutrix 
further  makes  a statement  in the  FIR that,  after 
shooting   of   the   blue   film,   the   petitioner   had 
established   physical   relations   with   her   against 
her wishes frequently. The prosecutrix also claims 
the   accused   having   procured   her   gold   ring   and 
Rs.10,000/­   from   her.   She   also   claims   to   have 
given   two   applications   against   the   petitioner   in 
the   police   station   as   she   could   not   bear   the 
petitioner   any   more.   It   is   stated   that, 
eventually, on account of settlement reached with 
the   petitioner,   she   withdrew   one   of   the 
applications,   and   as   the   accused   did   not   comply 
with   the   terms   of   the   settlement,   she   reiterated 
the   application   by   registering   another   (second) 
application with the police station. 

Since   in   the   FIR   itself,   a   reference   is   made   to 
the   above­referred   previous   applications   made   by 
the prosecutrix, the record was called for by this 
Court;   on   perusal   of   which,   it   is   noticed   that 
apart   from   the   two   applications   and   the   deed   of 
settlement   referred   to   by   the   prosecutrix   in   the 
FIR,  a statement  dated  22.7.2016  given  by her  is 
found.   In   her   statement   dated   22.7.2016   the 
prosecutrix   admits   her   consensual   relations   and 
frequent   sexual   acts   with   the   petitioner   at   the 
hotel   at   Lal   Darwaja.   In   the   said   statement   she 
refers to the accused having demanded Rs.10,000/­ 
and   her   mobile   under   the   pretext   that   he   would 
return   after   performance   of   namaj   but   did   not 
return   eventually.   It   is   clearly   stated   by   her 
that because of such dispute earlier she had filed 
application and thereafter when at Savarkundla the 
petitioner   met   her   and   promised   to   her   that   he 
will   return   Rs.10,000/­   and   mobile   phone,   she 
eventually   refers   to   the   settlement   without   any 
force   or   threat   from   any   corner   and   also 
acknowledges   the   receipt   of   Rs.10,000/­   and   the 
mobile   phone.   However   in   one   of   the   application 
above­referred she has come out with the different 
story  that  a sum  of Rs.10,000/­  and  mobile  phone 
was taken by the accused from her purse. Be that 
as it may, the prosecutrix goes on to make further 
allegation   against   the   petitioner   after   the 
settlement   in   another   complaint   which   has   been 
produced on record by the learned counsel for the 

Page 3 of 5

HC-NIC Page 3 of 5 Created On Sat Sep 16 00:54:40 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/23064/2017 ORDER

complainant.   The   said   application   seems   to   have 
been inwarded on 14.6.2017 with the office of DGP, 
Gandhinagar,   and   it   refers   to   the   occurrence   of 
9.11.2016   i.e.   more   than   six   months   back   of   the 
inward   date above­referred.  There  the prosecutrix 
comes   out   with   the   allegation   of   her   being 
kidnapped by the petitioner and other persons and 
she also makes an allegation that under compulsion 
by   the   petitioner   and   other   persons,   she   had   to 
give   away   her   immovable   property   worth   Rs.12.00 
lacs   for   Rs.1,34,000/­   and   thus   the   property   was 
grabbed   by   petitioner   and   others.   She   has   also 
made a grievance against as many as 53 persons in 
the said complaint.

Looking   to   the   above   conduct   of   the   prosecutrix 
and   other   facts   discussed   hereinabove,   prima 
facie,   her   case   emerging   in   the   FIR   does   not 
inspire   confidence   of   this   Court.   The   petitioner 
is therefore entitled to be admitted to bail.”

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that for quashing of 
the FIR registered at C.R. No. I – 70 of 2017 above stated, the petition 
under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure being Criminal Misc. 
Application No. 22821 of 2017 is already filed and since in the said case 
i.e. C.R. No. I – 70 of 2017 invoking the provisions of Atrocities Act are 
invoked,   it   may   not   be   possible   for   the   petitioners   to   invoke   the 
provisions of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and it is compliance with the above 
conditions the petitioners remain present in Karanj Police Station, there 
are chances of their being arrested in a frivolous and false complaint i.e. 
C.R. No. I – 70 of 2017.     It is therefore contended that to enable the 
petitioners   to   pray   for   necessary   orders   in   the   quashing   petition, 
protection of the petitioners is necessary.

5. Learned APP has opposed this application with the contention that 
a serious offence is alleged against the petitioners and the petitioners 
must   co­operate   with   the   law   by   presenting   themselves   in   the   police 
station   and   that   it   would   thereafter   for   the   police   to   decide   the 
appropriate course of action.

Page 4 of 5

HC-NIC Page 4 of 5 Created On Sat Sep 16 00:54:40 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/23064/2017 ORDER

6. Having considered the rival contentions as also having regard to 
the observations made by this Court as quoted hereinabove, this Court 
finds substance in the arguments advanced by the petitioners that the 
petitioners   may  be   arrested  in   connection   with   the  above   FIR   if   they 
mark presence on the specified day. In view of the observations made by 
this   Court   aforestated,   an   opportunity   is   required   to   be   given   to   the 
petitioners to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. before 
their   arrest.   Accordingly   while   partly   allowing   this   petition,   the 
petitioners are exempted from complying with the condition No.3(e) for 
the specified day i.e. 18.9.2017.  Rule is made absolute with no order as 
to costs.  Direct service (today) is permitted.


Page 5 of 5

HC-NIC Page 5 of 5 Created On Sat Sep 16 00:54:40 IST 2017

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link
MyNation Times Magzine

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

Recent Comments


Copyright © 2024 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation