Gujarat High Court
Bhargrajsinh Raghurajsinh Jadeja vs State Of Gujarat on 20 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8431/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 8431 of 2026
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 8472 of 2026
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 8500 of 2026
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
yes
========================================================== BHARGRAJSINH RAGHURAJSINH JADEJA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
========================================================== Appearance:
LD. SR. ADV. MR. DEVANG VYAS WITH MR RUCHIT J VYAS(10687) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR RONAK RAVAL, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER Date : 20/04/2026 COMMON JUDGMENT 1 Since the issues raised in these applications are similar, they are being decided by this common judgment. The facts of Criminal Misc. Application No.8472 of 2026 are taken for the purpose of adjudication.
2 The present application has been filed seeking quashment of the impugned FIRs registered with Gondal City 'B' Division Police Station, Rajkot, being C.R. Nos.11213094260216 of 2016, 11213015260251 of 2026 and 11213016260225 of Page 1 of 30 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 22:33:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8431/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined 2026.
3 Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Devang Vyas, assisted by learned advocate Mr. Ruchit Vyas, for the applicants and learned APP Mr. Ronak Raval for the respondent-State.
4 Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Vyas submits that the impugned FIRs, having been lodged after considerable delay, are nothing but an abuse of process and amount to harassment of the applicant.
It is contended that the FIRs are vague in nature and do not contain any specific allegations attributing a definite role, overt act, or participation to the applicant, but merely level general and omnibus accusations, which do not satisfy the threshold requirements for initiating criminal prosecution. Referring to the FIR under challenge in Criminal Misc. Application No.8431 of 2016, it is submitted that the allegations therein indicate that the accused persons, who are known to the complainant and reside in the same locality, had entered into certain financial transactions with the complainant over a period of time. It is alleged that the complainant was induced into such financial arrangements on the pretext of business and personal dealings, pursuant to which monies were advanced on multiple occasions. It is further alleged that on 16.10.2024, the accused Page 2 of 30 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 22:33:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8431/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined persons called the complainant, used abusive language, extended threats of dire consequences, and attempted to intimidate him so as to deter him from demanding repayment of his dues. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Vyas submits that the delay in lodging the FIR has been sought to be explained by alleging that the applicant is a headstrong person with criminal antecedents, however, such explanation is untenable. According to the learned senior advocate Mr. Vyas, the complainant claims that due to fear and the alleged absconding of the applicant, he lodged the FIR belatedly after gathering courage. It is contended that such delayed and vague allegations cannot form the basis of criminal prosecution and, therefore, the impugned FIRs deserve to be quashed.
4.1. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Vyas submits that, so far as Criminal Misc. Application No.8472 of 2026 is concerned, the allegations pertain to land bearing Survey No.1526 of 2002 situated at Gondal City, admeasuring approximately 1500 square yards, which is claimed to be ancestral property of the complainant's family, having devolved upon his father and uncles. It is submitted by the learned senior advocate Mr. Vyas that the uncles of the complainant had sold their Page 3 of 30 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 22:33:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8431/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined respective shares in the said property to one Chandulal Bhagwanji Patel, and thereafter the present applicant, along with accused No.2 - Imran Jikarbhai Nursumar, purchased the said property. On the strength of such purchase, it is alleged that the applicants have asserted rights over the property and have been pressurizing the complainant and his family to vacate the same.
4.2. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Vyas submits that, so far as Criminal Misc. Application No.8500 of 2026 is concerned, the FIR has been lodged by the complainant, Dhanjibhai Ravjibhai Bhundiya, who claims to be the owner of land bearing Survey No.251 paiki Plot No.5 situated at village Khandav, purchased by him in the year 2007. It is alleged that in the year 2018, the applicant approached the complainant with a proposal to purchase a portion of the said land admeasuring approximately 125 square meters for the purpose of installing a mobile tower, for which a consideration of Rs.50,000/- was agreed upon, along with an assurance of providing employment to one of the complainant's family members as a security guard. It is further alleged that on 29.12.2018, the complainant was called to the office of the Sub-Registrar for execution of an Page 4 of 30 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 22:33:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8431/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined agreement to sell, where he was allegedly coerced and threatened into stating that full consideration had been received, despite the same not having been paid. On raising objection, the complainant is stated to have been assaulted and threatened with dire consequences, including threats to life, and under such pressure, he executed the agreement to sell after allegedly receiving only Rs.40,000/-. Learned Senior Advocate submits that all the impugned FIRs have been registered at the same police station within a short span of time, thereby indicating a concerted attempt to harass the applicant.
4.3. It is further submitted by the learned senior advocate Mr. Vyas that, in respect of the FIR challenged in Criminal Misc. Application No.8431 of 2026, this Court has granted protection to the accused Dahyabhai, taking into consideration that Regular Civil Suit No.97 of 2020 filed by the complainant came to be dismissed in the year 2023. It is contended that the present FIRs have been lodged after considerable delay and at the instance of a person with an oblique motive to falsely implicate the applicant. Learned senior advocate Mr. Vyas further submits that merely because the applicant has criminal antecedents, relief under Section 482 of the Code or Article 226 Page 5 of 30 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 22:33:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8431/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined of the Constitution cannot be denied, as held by the Apex Court in Mohammad Wajid and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in 2023(0) AIJEL-SC-72172. In view of the aforesaid, it is submitted that the impugned FIRs have been filed out of personal vendetta and constitute an abuse of the process of law, and therefore deserve to be quashed.
5 Per contra, learned APP Mr. Raval submits that, apart from the criminal antecedents of the applicant, the call detail records collected during the course of investigation indicate that there were telephonic conversations between the applicant and the complainant, and the recordings prima facie disclose the use of threatening language. It is further submitted by the learned APP Mr. Raval that the investigation is still in progress and, therefore, at this stage, no interference is warranted.
6 Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties, it would be appropriate to refer to each of the FIRs lodged against the present applicant.
Page 6 of 30 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 22:33:07 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8431/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined FIR pertaining to Criminal Misc. Application No.841 of 2026 Page 7 of 30 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 22:33:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8431/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined Page 8 of 30 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 22:33:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8431/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined Page 9 of 30 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 22:33:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8431/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined Page 10 of 30 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 22:33:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8431/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined Page 11 of 30 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 22:33:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8431/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined FIR pertaining to Criminal Misc. Application No.8472 of 2026 Page 12 of 30 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 22:33:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8431/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined Page 13 of 30 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 22:33:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8431/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined Page 14 of 30 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 22:33:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8431/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined Page 15 of 30 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 22:33:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8431/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined Page 16 of 30 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 22:33:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8431/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined FIR pertaining to Criminal Misc. Application No.8500 of 2026 Page 17 of 30 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 22:33:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8431/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined Page 18 of 30 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 22:33:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8431/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined Page 19 of 30 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 22:33:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8431/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined Page 20 of 30 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 22:33:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8431/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined 7 This Court has perused the material collected during the course of investigation, as produced by the learned APP, including the call detail records pertaining to the applicant and the complainant. It is true that the FIRs have been lodged after a considerable delay; however, the complainant has offered an explanation to the effect that the applicant is a headstrong individual with multiple criminal antecedents, and that upon learning that the applicant was absconding, he gathered the courage to approach the authorities and lodge the FIR.
8 In order to ascertain the veracity of the aforesaid explanation, this Court has examined the antecedents of the present applicant, which are reproduced hereinbelow:
Sr. Sections Date of Date of
FIR No. Stage
No. Alleged FIR Incident
109(1), 118(2),
117(2), 115(2),
308(4), 54 of
1 11213015260189 05.03.2026 04.03.2026 Pending
BNS and
Section 135 of
the GP Act
308(4), 329,
2 11213094260202 324, 352, 54 18.03.2026 10.11.2025 Pending
of BNS, 2023
308(4), 352,
3 11213094260216 54 of BNS, 22.03.2026 16.10.2024 Pending
2023
308(4), 329(2),
23.03.2026
352, 351(3),
4 11213015260251 23.03.2026 (since last 4 Pending
54 of BNS,
years)
2023
Page 21 of 30
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 22:33:07 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8431/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026
undefined
Sr. Sections Date of Date of
FIR No. Stage
No. Alleged FIR Incident
386, 323, 504,
5 11213016260225 506(2) of IPC, 24.03.2026 29.12.2018 Pending 1860 65AA, 116B 1121304260164 6 and 81 of the 2026 2026 Pending of 2026 Prohibition Act 323, 504, 504(2), 143, 145, 147 of With consent 7 08/2014 IPC and 2014 2014 Quashed Section 25(1-
B) of the Arms
Act
506(2), 504,
114 of IPC Interim
and 3(1)(r), Relief / No
8 62/2019 2019 2019
3(2)(5-a) of Coercive
the Atrocities Steps
Act
323, 504,
506(2) under
9 59/2019 2019 2019 Pending
IPC and 135
of the GP Act
143, 147, 188,
269, 337, 427
11213015200806 Final
10 of IPC and 2020 2020
of 2020 Arguments
Section 135 of
the GP Act
Interim
447, 341, 427
11213015230448 Relief / No
11 and 117 of 2023 2023
of 2023 Coercive
IPC
Steps
9 It is well settled that merely on the ground of multiple FIRs, interference under the inherent jurisdiction cannot be declined in the absence of material collected during the course of investigation. However, the reliance placed by the learned Senior Advocate Mr. Vyas on the decision in Mohammad Page 22 of 30 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 22:33:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8431/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined Wajid and Another (supra) is misconceived in the facts of the present case. In the said decision, the Apex Court was dealing with a situation where the investigation had already concluded and the chargesheet did not disclose any material to substantiate the allegations made in the FIR. The said factual matrix is clearly distinguishable from the present case, wherein the FIRs have been lodged recently and the investigation is still at a nascent stage. In such circumstances, it would be appropriate to permit the Investigating Agency to carry out a full- fledged investigation so as to unearth the truth and bring the offenders to book, in furtherance of the cause of justice.
10 This Court has referred the following decisions rendered by the Apex Court:
10.1.This Court has referred the decision of the Apex Court in the case of S.M.Datta vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2001 (7) SCC 659 wherein it is held that the investigation of an offences within the exclusive domain of the police department and not the law courts. In the event of discloser of cognizable offence, it is duty incumbent to investigate into offence and bring the offender to books in order to serve the cause of justice. In the absence of a proper investigation in a case where an offence is disclosed, Page 23 of 30 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 22:33:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8431/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined the offender may succeed in escaping from the consequences and the offender may go unpunished to the detriment of the cause of justice and the society at large. The power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability and genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice.
10.2.In the case of Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 104, wherein the Apex Court has held that while exercising powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court should not interfere with the investigation if the FIR discloses the prima facie commission of a cognizable offence. It was further observed that the High Court cannot assume the role of an investigating agency or an appellate authority by examining disputed questions of fact or appreciating the evidence at the preliminary stage. Once the FIR discloses a prima facie offence, the investigating Page 24 of 30 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 22:33:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8431/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined agency must be permitted to carry out the investigation in accordance with law, and the Court should refrain from passing orders that impede or stall the statutory powers of the police to investigate the offence.
10.3.In the case of State Represented by the Inspector of Police vs. M.Maridoss, reported in 2023(4) SCC 338 wherein it is held that while exercising powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court should not conduct a "mini-trial" or evaluate the evidence in detail at the stage of quashing an FIR. The Court observed that the Madras High Court had prematurely quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 124A, 153A, 504, 505(1)(b), and 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code within four days of the FIR being lodged, without giving investigating agency the reasonable time to investigate.
10.4.In the case of Somjeet Mallick vs. State of Jharkhand, reported in 2024 (10) SCC 527 wherein it is held that while considering the petition for quashing under Section 482 Cr.PC, the Court must examine the allegations in the FIR and the materials collected during investigation at their face value only to determine whether a prima facie Page 25 of 30 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 22:33:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8431/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined case is made out. The Court has observed that the correctness or truthfulness of the allegations cannot be tested at the preliminary stage and if the allegations disclose dishonest conduct or a cognizable offence requires investigation, the High Court should not quash the proceedings at the threshold as doing so would obstruct a legitimate investigation.
10.5.In the case of Rocky vs. State of Telangana, reported in 2025 (0) JX (SC) 1486 wherein it is held that inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC must be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. The Apex Court emphasized that when the FIR and charge sheet disclose prima facie commission of cognizable offences, the High Court should not interfere at the pre-trial stage or conducts a mini-trial, and routine interim protections such as directions for "no coercive steps" should not be granted as they obstruct the statutory power of the police to investigate offences. The Apex Court further held that criminal proceedings should continue where the allegations are not inherently improbable and disclose the ingredients of an offence.
10.6.In the case of Pinakbhai Riddhibhai Desai vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2025 (0) JX (Guj.) Page 26 of 30 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 22:33:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8431/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined 1020, this Court laid down comprehensive principles governing the exercise of the High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing FIRs. It was held that the police have a statutory right as well as a duty to investigate cognizable offences, and therefore the Courts should ordinarily refrain from interfering at the stage of investigation or from granting blanket orders restraining the investigation. The Court further observed that while considering a petition seeking quashment of an FIR, the High Court is only required to examine whether the allegations made in the FIR prima facie disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, without assessing the truthfulness of the allegations or conducting a mini-trial. It was also clarified that the power to quash criminal proceedings is an exceptional power, which must be exercised sparingly and with great caution, and that routine interference with criminal investigations would amount to encroaching upon the statutory powers of the investigating agency.
10.7.This Court has referred to the decision of the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, Page 27 of 30 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 22:33:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8431/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein the Apex Court has laid down the guidelines governing the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which are reproduced hereinbelow:
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we have given the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(i) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(ii) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(iii) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support Page 28 of 30 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 22:33:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8431/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(iv) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(v) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(vi) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(vii) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
11 In addition to the aspect of delay, the conduct of the applicant also requires consideration. It emerges that in all three FIRs, the applicant is alleged to have purchased disputed properties without obtaining possession thereof and, despite claiming to have paid full consideration, did not initiate any legal proceedings to secure possession. Ordinarily, a prudent person, having paid the entire sale Page 29 of 30 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 22:33:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8431/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined consideration and having been denied possession, would promptly resort to appropriate legal remedies. However, in the present cases, despite being aware of the disputed nature of the properties, the applicant is stated to have entered into such transactions. Coupled with the antecedents of the applicant, it cannot be said that the allegations are frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive, nor can it be held that they do not prima facie disclose the involvement of the applicant.
12 The inherent powers of this Court under section 482 cannot be exercised sparingly and only in cases where FIR does not disclose any cognizable offence, the High Court can interfere with the investigation. When the material collected during the course of investigation prima facie supports the allegations, investigation cannot be interdicted at its threshold. In the considered opinion of this Court, quashing of a complaint is an exception and not the rule. The veracity or genuineness of the allegations made in the FIR cannot be examined at this stage and view of above the present application does not merit consideration at this stage and the same deserves to be dismissed.
13 Resultantly, the present applications stand dismissed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) M.M.MIRZA Page 30 of 30 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 22:33:07 IST 2026