The Gujarat High Court in the case Narendrakumar Rupchand Bairawa v. State of Gujarat observed and has stayed the filing of chargesheet filed against a practising advocate against whom an FIR was filed by a government official wherein it is alleged that he had been threatened by the authorities while they were discharging of their official duties.
The court stated while considering the facts and circumstances that it appears to the court who being professional advocate, he was called upon for fixing the date of notice and was present there with other persons.
The bench headed by Justice Ilesh J. Vora in the case observed and has directed the investigating officer for not filing of the chargesheet against the petitioner without prior permission of the court. It has also been stated by the court that I.O. is at liberty to proceed against the co-accused in accordance with rules and law.
In the present case, a government official came to the locality of Lawyer for serving a notice under Section 61 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code to vacate the land near Vishwakarma Nagar. Therefore, the petitioner who being an advocate, was being called upon by local residents and an objection was taken against the service of the back dated notice since it would have adversely affect the rights of the parties.
The court issued a notice dated 02.05.2022 which is being served on 04.10.2022, wherein the parties are required to remain present as per the plea before the authorities on 23.05.2022.
In the said case an FIR was registered on 05.10.2022 against the petitioner under Section 143, Section 186, Section 189, Section 294(b), Section 342, Section 384, Section 506(2), Section 147, Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Therefore, the allegations were made against the petitioner is that he along with the 250 other unknown accused persons were being threatened and abused the local authorities who went to serve notice.
However, the anticipatory bail on 13.10.2022was being granted by the petitioner by the Sessions Court Ahmedabad.
Therefore, the petitioner approached the High Court for quashing the impugned FIR on the ground that there is no prima facie case which is made out against him and that there are vague and the general allegations which are made against him.
It has been argued by the petitioner in the plea wherein quashing of the FIR that there being a delay of one day in lodging the FIR and the same suffers from material suppression of facts that entire altercation took place between the locals and authorities and the petitioner who being an advocate was also being called upon by the local persons.
Further, he submitted before the court that he was not present at the time narrated in the FIR which can be seen in the CCTV footages.
