The Gujarat High Court on Friday stayed the summons issued by a Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) court in Matar, Kheda district, to six police officers in connection with the public flogging incident in Undhela village in 2022. The incident occurred on October 4, 2022, when members of the Muslim community were publicly flogged following a stone-pelting incident at a garba event during Navratri. Videos of the flogging were widely circulated on social media.
Background of the Case
Complainant Aiyub Shaikh filed a complaint before the JMFC court in Matar, alleging conspiracy and assault by 13 police officials. Following an inquiry, JMFC Narendra Kumar, on May 2, took cognizance of offenses under Indian Penal Code Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) and 166 (public servant disobeying law with intent to cause injury). The court summoned six police officials: LCB inspectors A V Parmar and D V Kumawat, head constables Kanaksinh Dabhi and Vishbubhai Harjibhai, and constables Arjunsinh Fatehsinh and Rajendrasinh Rameshbhai. They were directed to appear on May 30.
Police Officials' Challenge
The six officials moved the High Court, arguing that the JMFC had not followed legal provisions. They contended that before taking cognizance of offenses allegedly committed by public servants in the discharge of official duties, the court must give them an opportunity to explain. Additionally, a report from a superior officer detailing the facts and circumstances of the incident must be obtained. Their counsel submitted that the JMFC failed to follow this procedure.
After a preliminary hearing, Justice Gita Gopi admitted the matter and stayed the proceedings until further orders. The next hearing is scheduled for August 17.
Previous Contempt Proceedings
In an earlier proceeding related to the same incident, the High Court in 2023 held four police personnel guilty of contempt of court: A V Parmar, D B Kumawat, Kanaksinh Dabi, and constable Raju Dabjhi. They were seen in videos of the flogging and were sentenced to 14 days' imprisonment. That order was later challenged in the Supreme Court, which stayed the High Court's ruling.
