Gujarat High Court
Sushilbhai Pradipbhai Parmar vs State Of Gujarat on 1 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17524/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (DIRECTION) NO. 17524 of 2025
==========================================================
SUSHILBHAI PRADIPBHAI PARMAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ND NANAVATY, Senior Advocate assisted by MR PRATIK Y JASANI(5325) for the
Applicant(s) No. 1
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 01/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mr. N.D. Nanavaty, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. P.Y. Jasani, learned advocate for the petitioner and learned APP appearing for the respondent-State.
2. Learned Senior Advocate does not press the present petition qua prayer clause (B) i.e. "pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this application, your lordships be pleased to stay the passing observations/remarks made by the learned Sessions Judge in the order dated 24.07.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.901 of 2025; and further be pleased to direct the investigating agency not to arrest the applicant in any manner whatsoever and not to take any coercive steps against him, in the interest of justice;
3. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for the respondent-State.
4. By way of the present application under Section 528 of the BNSS, the applicant seeks a direction for expunging the remarks made against him in Paragraph 4 of the order dated 24.07.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Morbi, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 901 of 2025.
Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 03 23:18:53 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17524/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined
5. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Nanvaty submits that the petitioner is a Government servant serving as Deputy Collector and, in that capacity, has discharged his quasi-judicial functions at the Morbi Collectorate. The petitioner, while acting in his official capacity, has no personal interest in any controversy or RTS proceedings. In the exercise of his quasi-judicial functions, the petitioner afforded due opportunity to all concerned parties and proceeded to certify Mutation Entry No. 23871, passing an order dated 27.09.2024. It is further submitted that even a civil proceeding was pending in respect of the same subject matter, and if any party was aggrieved, the appropriate remedy lay before the competent forum; however, the petitioner himself had no personal stake whatsoever. It is submitted that a complaint came to be filed before "A" Division Police Station, Morbi, against Shantaben Manjbhai Parmar and Sagar Ambarambhai Phultaria. One of the co-accused preferred an anticipatory bail application being Criminal Misc. Application No. 401 of 2025, while another accused, Hetalben Borania, preferred Criminal Misc. Application No. 901 of 2025, which came to be dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. While rejecting the said bail application, the learned Sessions Judge, in Paragraph 4 of the order, made observations imputing that the petitioner was part of the alleged conspiracy. These remarks were made without affording the petitioner any opportunity of being heard. Such observations, being unwarranted, have unnecessarily dented the reputation of the petitioner, a Government servant, and placed a weapon in the hands of private parties to misuse against him for their personal gain. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner has maintained a spotless career and has no Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 03 23:18:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17524/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined connection whatsoever with the alleged offence. Even assuming any negligence or lapses in discharge of duties, the same would at best be departmental lapses to be dealt with administratively by the Department, but can never be attributed as mala fide intention or mens rea on the part of the petitioner. As a revenue officer, the petitioner has acted strictly in discharge of his duties. It is therefore submitted that the observations made by the learned Sessions Judge in the order dated 24.07.2025 are per se illegal, contrary to settled principles of law, and made without granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The said remarks deserve to be expunged. In this regard the learned Senior Advocate placed reliance in the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of State of Karnataka v. J. Manjunath, 2023 (0) AIJEL-SC 70647 and Seemant Kumar Singh V. Mahesh PS (2023 INSC 272), and requested to allow the present petition.
6. Learned APP has opposed the present petition and submits that she does not support the remarks made by the learned Sessions Judge. However, in so far as administrative lapses are concerned, it is submitted that whatever allegations or lapses have been noticed on the part of the petitioner, the Collector has delegated the powers and entrusted the inquiry to the Additional Collector. The Additional Collector has conducted a preliminary inquiry and found certain irregularities, which are presently under consideration.
7. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the documents on record, it appears that the present applicant is a Government servant serving as Deputy Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 03 23:18:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17524/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined Collector. The complainant had filed a complaint in connection with a property situated at Village Vajepur, alleging preparation of a forged pedigree and death certificate by certain false legal heirs, who obtained a mutation entry and executed a sale deed. The complaint was registered as C.R. No. 401 of 2025 before Morbi City "A" Division Police Station under Sections 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 339, and 3(5) of the BNS Act. In the said matter, one Hetalben Vijaybhai Bhoraniya had filed a bail application under Section 483, which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. While dismissing the application, the following observations were made by the Sessions Judge in Paragraph 4 as under:
"4. There is a well planned conspiracy and there is a deep rooted conspiracy. The lady accused Hetalben has played pivotal role in the commission of this serious crime. It is also required to be noted at this juncture that the Ld. Advocate of the applicant has produced copy of the previous anticipatory bail application preferred by main accused Sagar Ambabhai Fultariya being Cr.M.A. No. 401 of 2025, but he has not produced the copy of the order of the Hon'ble High Court being Cr.M.A. No. 8148 of 2025. He has also not disclosed this fact that the said main accused Sagar Ambabhai Fultariya also preferred bail application before Hon'ble the High Court which was rejected by a reasoned order. It is also required to be noted at this juncture that legal heirs of deceased Becharbhai Dungarbhai Nakum submitted objection application against the mutation entry No. 23871 on 03.08.2024. But the concerned Deputy Collector namely Sushil Parmar rejected the said objection application by the order dated 27.09.2024. The order of the Deputy collector has been reversed by the Ld. Collector, Morbi. It appears that Deputy Collector, Morbi namely Shushil Parmar has also become hand in glove because it was very apparent that Shantaben is not the daughter of Late Becharbhai Dungarbhai Nakum. Shantaben, as noted above, hails from Koli community whereas, Becharbhai Dungarbhai Nakum Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 03 23:18:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17524/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined hails from Satwara community. Even though, the Ld. Deputy Collector, namely Shushil Parmar has decided the matter in favour of the present accused persons and therefore, appropriate actions should have been taken against him. But, for the reasons, best known to the Investigating Officer, no actions are taken against the Deputy Collector Sri Shushil Parmar. Investigating Officer has also not taken note of the order of the Learned Collector, Morbi. On the basis of mutation entry in the revenue record, the complainant raised the objection, as noted above, the Learned Deputy Collector came to the conclusion that the mutation entry in revenue record is genuine one. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order the complainant preferred the appeal before the Learned Collector Morbi, and at the very outset the Learned Collector, Morbi granted Status-quo order. Thereafter, the order of the Deputy Collector has been quashed and set aside."
8. Since the petitioner is a Government servant and was not afforded an opportunity of being heard, reliance is placed on Section 173(2) of the Criminal Manual, which reads as follows:
"173. (2) If a Judge or Magistrate finds it necessary to criticise the conduct of an official of another department in a judgment, the criticism must be worded with the utmost care having regard to the fact that in many cases the official has had no opportunity to refuse the criticism or explain the action criticised. Personal imputations should not be made. A copy of the judgment should be supplied to the official superior to the official criticised."
9. It appears that no opportunity has been afforded to the Dy. Collector to be heard, and no specific allegations have been levelled against him. Any lapses noted pertain solely to administrative matters, for which the Department has taken appropriate action. Therefore, in view of the above, the remarks made against the present petitioner in the bail application, without giving him an opportunity of being heard, are liable to be expunged.
Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 03 23:18:53 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17524/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined
10. Herein while deciding the bail application, neither the conduct of the present petitioner nor the revenue proceedings were in question. The learned Sessions Judge was adjudicating solely on the bail application, and the present petitioner was condemned unheard. Therefore, the observations made in Paragraph 4 of the order require interference, as they pertain to administrative matters, which fall within the exclusive domain of the competent authority. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sonu Agnihotri v. Chandrashekhar, 2024 INSC 888, and I; "K", A Judicial Officer, reported in (2001) 3 SCC 54. Therefore, para 4 of the order dated dated 24.07.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Morbi, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 901 of 2025 is hereby expunged.
11. It is, however, made clear that if, during the course of investigation, any evidence is collected by the investigating agency and if any involvement of the present petitioner is revealed, then the investigating agency shall be at liberty to take appropriate action independently, without being influenced by any observations made by this Court in this order and the aforesaid observations shall not come in the way of investigation of any proceedings.
12. with the aforesaid direction, the present petition stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ALI Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 03 23:18:53 IST 2025