Gujarat High Court
Bharatbhai Karsanbhai Chaudhary vs State Of Gujarat on 9 September, 2025
Author: Nirzar S. Desai
Bench: Nirzar S. Desai
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2854/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 2854 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
=====================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
Yes
=====================================================
BHARATBHAI KARSANBHAI CHAUDHARY
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
=====================================================
Appearance:
MS HETVI H SANCHETI(5618) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR RB THAKOR(6743) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR RONAK RAVAL ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
=====================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 09/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned advocate Ms. Hetvi Sancheti, appearing for the applicant, and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Ronak Raval, appearing for the respondent - State. Page 1 of 11 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Sep 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 13 05:03:24 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/2854/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined
2. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter was taken up for final hearing. Hence, Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondents.
3. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the FIR being I.C.R. No. 11195019211193 of 2021, dated 04.12.2021, registered with Deesa Rural Police Station, Banaskantha, for the offences punishable under Sections 403 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. As per the impugned FIR dated 04.12.2021, registered under Sections 403 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code, the present applicant is shown as accused No.3. The first informant, namely Bhupendrabhai Dhudabhai Solanki, the then Taluka Development Officer, Deesa, has stated that under the Swachh Bharat Mission, it was reported that the District Rural Development Agency, Banaskantha, Palanpur, had committed Page 2 of 11 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Sep 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 13 05:03:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/2854/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined certain serious irregularities, and therefore, an order was passed to file a criminal complaint against them. According to the FIR, under the Government policy for the years 2016-17 and 2017-18, persons found eligible under the scheme for construction of toilets were entitled to receive financial assistance of Rs.12,000/-. The said amount was to be shared between the Central Government and the State Government in the ratio of 70% and 30% respectively, and the entire scheme was to be implemented by the concerned Taluka Development Officer (T.D.O.). As per the FIR, in village Talepura, 117 beneficiaries were identified for implementation of the scheme, and sanction was granted in their favour. As per the scheme, the amount was to be disbursed only after the construction of toilets. Accordingly, the contract for construction of the aforesaid toilets was awarded to Jay Shitlama Sakhi Mandal, Therwada, Taluka Deesa, through its leader/deputy leader, namely Solanki Minaben Govindbhai and Barot Godavariben Rajabhai. The Page 3 of 11 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Sep 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 13 05:03:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/2854/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined contract was awarded to them vide work order dated 22.06.2016, and they were required to complete the work of construction of toilets by 20.09.2017. Accordingly, after following the due procedure prescribed under the scheme, the bills were processed and the amount was paid to the beneficiaries. Thereafter, one Dahyabhai Ganeshbhai Chaudhari made a complaint to the Director of the District Rural Development Agency, Palanpur, pursuant to which an inquiry was conducted, and it was found that certain persons had received the benefits of the scheme despite not being included in the baseline survey. Nine persons were granted benefits despite not having constructed toilets, resulting in a total misappropriation of Rs.1,32,000/-. Out of this, in one case, a sum of Rs.10,000/- was deposited with Jay Shitlama Sakhi Mandal, Therwada, which in turn deposited the same with the Government. Thus, the net misappropriation came to Rs.1,20,000/-. Accordingly, the present applicant was arraigned Page 4 of 11 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Sep 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 13 05:03:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/2854/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined as accused No.3, it being alleged that he was the contractor appointed by accused Nos.1 and 2 for construction of toilets. The aforesaid FIR, insofar as it relates to accused No.3, is under challenge by way of this petition.
5. Learned advocate Ms. Hetvi Sancheti drew the attention of the Court to the averments made by the applicant in Ground No.8, wherein it has been categorically stated on oath by the applicant that there is not a single document on record to show that the present applicant was employed by Sakhi Sevamandal, either directly or indirectly, as a contractor for construction of toilets. Learned advocate Ms. Hetvi Sancheti argued the matter on the aforesaid premise, submitting that when the present applicant was neither employed as a contractor nor as a subcontractor, and when there is no document indicating that at any point of time the applicant was appointed to construct toilets in such capacity, coupled with the fact that the present applicant is not a beneficiary of the Page 5 of 11 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Sep 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 13 05:03:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/2854/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined scheme who has availed any benefit for construction of a toilet for himself, the FIR against him is unsustainable. The entire FIR, insofar as it relates to the present applicant, is misconceived, and therefore, when there is no basis for arraigning the present applicant as an accused in the FIR, all consequential proceedings against the present applicant are required to be quashed and set aside.
6. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 04.03.2022, while issuing notice, permitted the investigating agency to proceed with the investigation. However, a direction was issued that no charge-sheet shall be filed against the present applicant without prior permission of this Court. The aforesaid relief granted vide order dated 04.03.2022 continues to remain in operation till date.
7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Ronak Raval, appearing for the respondent-State, Page 6 of 11 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Sep 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 13 05:03:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/2854/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined pointed out from the records of investigation produced before this Court through the I.O. and submitted that the present applicant had paid a sum of Rs.12,000/- from his account to the Government towards settlement of the allegation of double payment made in respect of one of the beneficiaries. However, though the investigation was permitted to continue ever since the first order was passed on 04.03.2022, in this span of three and a half years, when the investigation is still pending and no charge-sheet has been filed, from all the documents available with the I.O., learned APP Mr. Ronak Raval could not point out any material to indicate that at any point of time the present applicant had availed the benefit of the Government's scheme of constructing toilets, either as a beneficiary, or that there exists any document showing that the present applicant was engaged to construct toilets in the capacity of a contractor or subcontractor, or that he had received any payment from any Government agency under the Page 7 of 11 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Sep 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 13 05:03:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/2854/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined aforesaid scheme. All that was relied upon by learned APP Mr. Ronak Raval was the statement of co-accused, namely Minaben Govindbhai Solanki and Godavariben Rajabhai Barot, who are accused Nos.1 and 2, stating that the present applicant had settled the overpayment with the Government; and it is only on the basis of the aforesaid statement that the present applicant was arraigned as an accused. However, there is no corroborative material, either in the form of documentary evidence or in the form of any statement by any person other than the co- accused, nor could any such material be produced before the Court by learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Ronak Raval appearing for the respondent - State.
8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Ronak Raval pointed out certain statements suggesting that the present applicant may have constructed toilets. However, even after a thorough investigation, no evidence has been produced on Page 8 of 11 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Sep 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 13 05:03:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/2854/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined records to show that the present applicant received any amount or that there was any contract between Sakhi Mandal and the present applicant. Therefore, there is no material to indicate that, even if the present applicant constructed the toilets, he was in any way involved in the commission of the offence in question.
9. Considering the fact that the present applicant is arraigned as accused No.3 and the investigation has been ongoing for more than three and half years, during which the learned APP, through the I.O., could not produce a single piece of evidence, even prima facie, to indicate that the present applicant ever acted in the capacity of a contractor or subcontractor, or that he received any payment from any Government agency, this Court is compelled to take note of the same. The only evidence against the present applicant is that an amount of Rs.12,000/- was paid from his Page 9 of 11 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Sep 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 13 05:03:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/2854/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined account to the Government to settle the allegation of overpayment. However, there exists no contract in favor of the present applicant to construct toilets, nor is there any material to indicate that the present applicant was a beneficiary of the scheme. The present applicant cannot be presumed to be an accused merely on the ground that he paid a sum of Rs.12,000/- from his account to the Government. Accordingly, I do not find any material against the present applicant even after a thorough investigation carried out by the I.O., and the only material relied upon by learned Additional Public Prosecutor is the statement of the co-accused. Though such statement could be considered by the Court, there is no supporting material to indicate that the present applicant in any way derived any benefit from the State, either by failing to construct the toilets or by acting as a contractor. When there is no material to support the version of the co-accused, I see no reason to continue the proceedings against the Page 10 of 11 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Sep 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 13 05:03:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/2854/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined present applicant pursuant to the registration of the FIR. In view of the fact that there is no material against the present applicant, the continuation of the FIR and all consequential proceedings against the present applicant would amount to an abuse and misuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the present FIR and all consequential proceedings against the present applicant are required to be quashed and set aside, and the same are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to cost.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J) Pallavi Page 11 of 11 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Sep 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 13 05:03:24 IST 2025