Gujarat High Court
Dilip Natu Bhai Rajput vs State Of Gujarat on 3 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/12109/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 12109
of 2025
============================================
DILIP NATU BHAI RAJPUT
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
============================================
Appearance:
MR BRIJ V SHETH(10594) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HARDIK MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 03/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1) RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of respondent No.1 - State of Gujarat.
2) By way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 the petitioner has sought following relief(s):-
"(B) The Hon'ble Court may please to allow this Special Criminal Application by issuing appropriate writ, order of direction quashing and setting aside the F.I.R.
No.11200019251315 under Section
465/467/468/471/406/420/120B IPC Police Station
Dongri Dist. Valsaad which is placed at Annexure-D, and also please to quash the further proceeding arising thereof qua the petitioner in the interest of justice; (C) Pending admission and till final disposal of the present application, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant stay on execution, operation and further investigation of F.I.R. No.11200019251315 under Section 465/467/468/471/406/420/120B IPC Police Station Page 1 of 12 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Sat Sep 06 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 08 22:35:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/12109/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2025 undefined Dongri Dist. Valsaad which is placed at Annexure-D and further proceeding arising thereof qua the petitioner in the interest of justice;
(D) pass a writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the respondent No.3 to hold an inquiry in respect of income source of the respondent No.2 of paying a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/-."
3) The facts pertinent to the present case are as under :-
The accused persons namely Manoj Arvindbhai Shah, Tushar Arvindbhai Shah, and Tripti Arvind Shah are shown as owners in the revenue record of the property situated at Village Vaghaldhara, Taluka & District Valsad, bearing Block/Survey No. 356 admeasuring 0-98-75 Hectares-Ares-Sq. Mtrs. and Block/Survey No. 359 admeasuring 0-11-96 Hectares-Ares-Sq.
Mtrs. It is alleged that these persons, by entering into a pre- planned conspiracy, prepared a Power of Attorney and a Notarized Affidavit in the name of Amit Dinesh Poda; and in connivance with Dilip Natubhai Rajput, resident of Thala, Chikhli, District Navsari i.e. the present petition and Krupal Bipinchandra Patel, carried out the process of submitting the said documents before the Revenue Office for mutation entry in the Office of Mamlatdar, despite these documents being false and illegal. In this connection, Manoj Arvindbhai Shah filed an objection solely to create legal hurdles and along with said objection produced a false registered Sale Deed No. 9440/2023, thereby deliberately creating confusion before the Deputy Collector. During the course of these illegal acts, the accused persons in collusion with each other dishonestly obtained a total sum of Rs. 1,93,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Ninety Three Lakhs only) from the complainant. Out of this, Rs. 1,85,00,000/- was taken as sale consideration - credited into the account of Dilipbhai bearing Page 2 of 12 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Sat Sep 06 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 08 22:35:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/12109/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2025 undefined Account No.50100398138189 maintained with HDFC Bank, Chikhli Branch, and in the account of Amit Dinesh Ponda bearing Account No. 4827101001008 maintained with Canara Bank, Vesu Surat Branch, through UPI, IMPS and cash. Additionally, Rs.8,00,000/- was collected by Krupal P. Patel from the complainant towards stamp duty and registration fees. Thus, all the accused by acting together in conspiracy and collusion, prepared false and fabricated documents and produced them before the Government Offices and thereby committed criminal breach of trust, cheating, and fraud against the complainant. Therefore, the impugned complaint came to be registered being FIR No.11200019251315 of 2025, with Dungri Police Station, District Valsad, for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, against the present petitioner and co-accused.
4) Learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely enroped in the offence and he has nothing to do with the offence. That no transaction took place and the petitioner has not played any role in commission of offence of forgery under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC much less no offence under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC is committed. The petitioner has lent Rs.21,00,000/- to the complainant in return the complainant has executed a promissory note dated 19.01.2023 in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has not received a single rupee of the alleged transaction of Rs.1,85,00,000/- which allegedly took place in cash. The petitioner has nothing to do with any of the co- accused and even the petitioner is not the owner of the property. The respondent no.2 having no cogent evidence in Page 3 of 12 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Sat Sep 06 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 08 22:35:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/12109/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2025 undefined respect of paying Rs.1 crore. The petitioner is a senior citizen and recently undergone a bypass surgery and multiple times he was admitted in the hospital and doing rest. The petitioner has not received financial gain, benefit, advantage and consideration from the respondent no.2. In support of his arguments the learned Advocate for the petitioner has relied upon judgments i.e. 1) Indian Oil Corp. Vs. NEPC India Ltd., reported in (2006) 6 SCC 736; 2) Alpic Finance Ltd. Vs. P. Sadasivan reported in (2001) 3 SCC 513; 3) Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma Vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2000) 4 SCC 168;
4) Paramjeet Batra Vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in (2013) 11 SCC 673; 5) Randheer Singh Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors., Criminal Appeal No.932 of 2023;
6) Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, reported in (1988) 1 SCC 692; 7) Vesa Holdings Private Limited & Anr., Vs. State of Kerala & Ors., reported in (2015) 8 SCC 293; 8) Uma Shankar Gopalika Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., reported in (2005) 10 SCC 336; 9) Inder Mohan Goswami Vs. State of Uttaranchal reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1; 10) Sarabjit Kaur Vs. The State of Punjab, Criminal Appeal No.581 of 2023,
11) Usha Chakraborty Vs. State of West Bengal, dated 30.01.2023, 12) Vijay Kumar Ghai Vs. State of WB, reported in (2022) 7 SCC 124; 13) Mitesh Kumar J. SHA Vs. The State of Karnataka, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 976; 14) Anand Kumar Mohatta Vs. State NCT of Delhi reported in 2019 Volume 11 SCC 706; 15) S. N. Vijayalakshmi & Ors., Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr., in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.8626 of 2024, dated 31.07.2025; 16) Narinder Singh & Ors., Vs. State of Page 4 of 12 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Sat Sep 06 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 08 22:35:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/12109/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2025 undefined Punjab & Anr., reported in 2014 6 SCC 466; 17) State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal & Others, reported in 1992 Supp. (1) 355; 18) Gayatri Developers Thro Vasubhai Chunibhai Patel & Ors., Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr., in Special Criminal Application (Quashing) No.15344 of 2024; 19) The Correspondence, RBANMS Educational Institution Vs. B. Gunashekar & Another, reported in 2025 INSC 490;
The learned Advocate for the petitioner has further submitted that there is no entrustment of the property or iota of evidence which suggest breach of trust for allegations of the cheating against the petitioner. Hence, he has requested to quash the impugned FIR and further proceeding arising thereof qua the petitioner.
5) Learned APP for the respondent - State of Gujarat has opposed the present petition on the ground that the petitioner is a kingpin and hatched criminal conspiracy with the co-accused. The petitioner in connivance with one Advocate Mr. Krupalbhai Bipinchandra Patel prepared forged documents and got registered by making the false rubber stamp and seal of Sub- Registrar, Valsad, by which government documents came to be forged and on the basis of said documents they tried to mutate the entry in revenue record. They have executed such forged document in favour of complainant and pocketed money as part of criminal conspiracy along with co-accused. First they have prepared power of attorney before the Notary Public and thereafter the petitioner had played active role in the alleged transaction. They have executed false documents and after Page 5 of 12 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Sat Sep 06 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 08 22:35:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/12109/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2025 undefined pocketing the money through UPI and IMPS transaction received Rs.1,85,00,000/- as well as stamp duty and fees of Rs.8,00,000/- and said documents came to be produced before the authority and thereafter they have raised objections against the entry in revenue record and tried to extort money and duped.
5.1) The offence of cheating is prima facie made out against the petitioner as forged power of attorney and record and seal of Sub-Registrar, Valsad was made. In this connection the complaint was received by the Superintendent of Police and it was investigated by Special Investigation Team (SIT) and thereafter complaint came to be registered. Initially, the accused have forged power of attorney in the name of Amit Dinesh Ponda and thereafter false registered Sale Deed No.9840/2023 was executed and received the money. During the investigation notice was issued but the petitioner was on run and did not join the investigation. The co-accused Advocate has also sent a reply to the Investigating Agency, wherein, he has clearly pointed out the role of the petitioner. The petitioner himself sent the copy of reply on WhatsApp and thereafter they have raised objections. The Call Detail Record was collected as per which the petitioner contacted co-accused and complainant, the petitioner telephonically called the complainant 226 times, 626 telephonic calls between the accused, complainant and petitioner, 208 telephonic calls between the petitioner and power of attorney holder. Hence, prima facie involvement of the petitioner in the offence as he has played an active role in the commission of offence. Even there are three other offences have been registered against the petitioner. Hence, the learned APP has requested to dismiss the present petition.
Page 6 of 12 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Sat Sep 06 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 08 22:35:30 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/12109/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2025 undefined
6) Having heard learned Advocates for respective parties and having gone through the documents available on record, it appears that the petitioner is named in the FIR. The petitioner in collusion with the co-accused, entered into a criminal conspiracy. It is alleged that on the basis of a Power of Attorney executed in the name of co-accused Amit Dinesh Ponda, with respect to the properties situated at Mouje Vaghaldhara, Taluka & District Valsad, Block/Survey No.356 admeasuring 0-98-75 Hectare-Are- Sq. Mtrs. and Block/Survey No. 359 admeasuring 0-11-96 Hectare-Are-Sq. Mtrs., a false and forged registered document bearing Registration No. 9840/2023 was prepared. It prima facie appears that the said document carried forged signatures, stamps and seals purporting to be that of the Sub-Registrar, Valsad, and the same was handed over to the complainant. On the strength of such representation, a substantial amount of money came to be transferred by the complainant in favour of the accused persons. An amount of Rs. 1,85,00,000/- was credited to 1) Account No.50100398138189, HDFC Bank, Chikhli Branch in the name of the petitioner - accused and 2) Account No. 4827101001008, Canara Bank, Vesu Surat Branch, in the name of co-accused Amit Dinesh Ponda, through UPI, IMPS and in cash. In addition, co-accused Kripal P. Patel have received an amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- towards stamp duty and registration charges. Thus, in total, the accused persons appear to have pocketed a sum of Rs. 1,93,00,000/-. The material on record, therefore, prima facie discloses the commission of offences relating to criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery, and conspiracy against the petitioner along with the co-accused.
Page 7 of 12 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Sat Sep 06 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 08 22:35:30 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/12109/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2025 undefined
7) During the investigation it prima facie reveals that with the help of co-accused prepared false power of attorney in the name of Amit Ponda on the basis of which executed a false Sale Deed of the disputed property in favour of complainant by preparing forged rubber stamp and seal of the Sub-Registrar, Valsad. Thereafter, they also forged 7/12 extract of the said property and handed over to the complainant. In fact the said documents pertains to one flat situated in Chikhli Taluka & District Valsad, and property situated at Pardi Parnera, Taluka & District Valsad which were forged and used as registered Sale Deeds towards alleged transaction. The petitioner was in contact with the co- accused and telephonically called the complainant 226 times, 626 telephonic calls between the accused, complainant and petitioner, and 208 telephonic calls between the petitioner and power of attorney holder, the Call Detail Record was also collected during the investigation. The petitioner is having past antecedents and prima facie involvement is revealed. So far alleged defence of the petitioner that he gave Rs.21,00,000/- to the complainant and in turn the complainant executed a promissory note in the year 2023, is not amounts to defence. Hence, prima facie involvement of the petitioner is revealed in the offence. Herein there is no any allegation of offence under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC but allegations of forgery of Government documents and using it as genuine and at the time of mutation of entry in revenue record they objected the mutation of the said entry. Considering the said fact, the petitioner has played active role in introducing the accused no.3 who is an Advocate and he has sent reply to the Investigating Agency wherein also role of the petitioner is revealed.
Page 8 of 12 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Sat Sep 06 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 08 22:35:30 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/12109/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2025 undefined
8) As discussed above that no any allegations of offence under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC and no commercial or money transaction or civil dispute but allegations of forgery and cheating are clearly reveal and forgery of Government documents and seal is also revealed. Hence, authorities relied by the learned Advocate for the petitioner are not helpful to the petitioner. It is pertinent to note that each case depends on its own facts and similarly between one case and another is not enough to warrant like treatment. In this regard reference is required to be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Zee Tele films Ltd. vs. Union of India reported in (2005 (4) SCC 649 and in case of Parasa Raja Manikyala Rao And Anr vs State Of A.P reported in AIR 2004 SC 132, wherein, it is observed and held as under:
"...Each case, more particularly a criminal case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough to warrant like treatment because a significant detail may alter the entire aspect. In deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as said by Cordozo) by matching the colour of one case against the colour of another. To decide therefore on which side of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case is not at all decisive."
9) As discussed above prima facie offence of forgery is also made out. Hence, merely based on offence of criminal breach of trust and offence of cheating cannot go together, said arguments and authorities would not avail any assistance to the petitioner.
10) The arguments of the learned Advocate for the petitioner are in nature of defence and while deciding the quashing petition, Court has to consider only the allegations levelled in the Page 9 of 12 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Sat Sep 06 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 08 22:35:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/12109/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2025 undefined complaint and as to whether prima facie offence is made out or not. Herein, prima facie offence is made out. Whatever defence put forth by the petitioner cannot be looked into at this stage as the investigation is at nascent stage and present case does not fall in the category of law laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhajan Lal vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 1992 SC 604. Further, the complaint indicates that the offense was registered on 08.08.2025, and an ongoing investigation is in progress and at this initial stage, the petitioner has filed this petition for quashing and setting aside the complaint, which evidently appears filed with a view to stall further proceedings and investigation.
11) Further in the case of Neeharika Infrastruecture Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharshtra, reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 315 wherein, the Apex Court has observed that:
"iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the 'rarest of rare cases'. (The rarest of rare cases standard in its petition for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context of the death penalty, as explained previously by this Court);
v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint;
vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;
vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule;"
12) It is also appropriate to refer to the decision of the case of Emperor vs. Khwaja Nazir Ahmed reported in AIR 1945 PC Page 10 of 12 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Sat Sep 06 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 08 22:35:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/12109/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2025 undefined 18, wherein, it has been observed that in India, there is a statutory right on the part of the police to investigate the circumstances of an alleged cognizable crime without requiring any authority from the judicial authorities. It is further observed that it would be an unfortunate result if it should be held possible to interfere with those statutory rights by an exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. It is further observed that the functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping, and the combination of individual liberty with a due observance of law and order is only to be obtained by leaving each to exercise its own function.
13) It is also appropriate to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Aryan Singh etc. reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 379 (Para 10), wherein it is held that scope under Section 482 of the CrPC is very limited and High Court cannot conduct a mini trial. The Hon'ble Apex Court in para 10 held as under:-
"10. From the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has dealt with the proceedings before it, as if, the High Court was conducting a mini trial and/or the High Court was considering the applications against the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court on conclusion of trial. As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to conduct the mini trial. The High Court in the common impugned judgment and order has observed that the charges against the accused are not proved. This is not the stage where the prosecution / investigating agency is/are required to prove the charges. The charges are required to be Page 11 of 12 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Sat Sep 06 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 08 22:35:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/12109/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2025 undefined proved during the trial on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution / investigating agency. Therefore, the High Court has materially erred in going in detail in the allegations and the material collected during the course of the investigation against the accused, at this stage. At the stage of discharge and/or while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court has a very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider "whether any sufficient material is available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not."
14) Considering the aforesaid facts, settled position of law as well as prima facie involvement of the petitioner in the offence, the Court is unable to come to any conclusion that the offence is not made out. Therefore, the petition stands dismissed at admission stage. Observations made herein above are tentative in nature and will not cause any prejudice to either party at the trial. Rule is discharged.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ANKIT Page 12 of 12 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Sat Sep 06 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 08 22:35:30 IST 2025