Gujarat High Court
Lavjibhai Amarsinhbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 3 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/881/2014 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 881 of 2014
==========================================================
LAVJIBHAI AMARSINHBHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MRUGEN K PUROHIT(1224) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
DILIPKUMAR K DAVDA(7858) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
J K GANDHI(7482) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. CHINTAN DAVE, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 03/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, who has placed on record the withdrawal pursis filed by the original complainant at Exhibit-6 in Criminal Inquiry No. 14 of 2013, together with the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patdi, below Exhibit-1, disposing of the said inquiry. The said position also finds corroboration from the report tendered by the learned District Judge, Surendranagar.
2. It emerges from the record that in Criminal Inquiry No. 14 of 2013, the learned Magistrate had earlier passed an order under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, directing investigation of the alleged offence through the police, pursuant to which the FIR at Annexure-A came to be registered against the present petitioner. However, in the year 2023, the complainant, having expressed disinclination to pursue the matter any further, withdrew the inquiry, and accordingly, the learned trial Court disposed of the same. These circumstances unmistakably reveal that Page 1 of 2 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Wed Sep 03 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 04 01:11:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/881/2014 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2025 undefined the complainant is no longer desirous of prosecuting the accused.
3. At this juncture, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has drawn the attention of this Court to a cross-complaint which had been registered even prior to the FIR in question, the trial of which has culminated in an order of acquittal. The learned APP has also placed on record the judgment and order passed therein.
4. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of the impugned FIR would serve no fruitful purpose and would, rather, amount to an abuse of the process of law. Despite service, the private respondent, though represented through learned counsel, has chosen not to remain present.
5. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the petition merits acceptance and is accordingly ALLOWED. The impugned FIR being M. Case No.1 of 2014 registered with Patdi Police Station, Surendranagar and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom stand quashed. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
6. Needless to clarify, the complainant shall be at liberty to seek revival of the proceedings in the event of any legally sustainable difficulty.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) MANISH MISHRA Page 2 of 2 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Wed Sep 03 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 04 01:11:18 IST 2025