Gujarat High Court
Ashokkumar Tekchandbhai Rathi vs State Of Gujarat on 28 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/975/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 975 of 2019
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================================
ASHOKKUMAR TEKCHANDBHAI RATHI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR YASH P MOHTA(7423) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR MAHENDRA U VORA(3034) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 28/04/2026
JUDGMENT
[1.0] By way of present revision application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "CrPC"), the applicant has prayed for quashing and setting aside of the order dated 14.02.2019 passed below Exh.26 by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.1, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No.274/2013, whereby the learned Magistrate dismissed the application Exh.26 filed in Criminal Case No.274/2013 under Section 239 of the CrPC seeking discharge.
[2.0] Heard learned advocate appearing for the respective parties.
[3.0] The present applicant is original accused No.14 as per the charge-sheet and respondent No.2 is the original complainant of Page 1 of 9 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 21:46:33 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/975/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined Criminal Case No.274/2013 which has arisen from the charge-sheet in connection with FIR being I-C.R. No.53/2013 registered with Isanpur Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offence punishable under Sections 384, 385, 506(1), 294(b), 114 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC") and under Sections 5, 7 and 33 of the Mumbai Money Lenders Act. The case of the complainant is that her younger brother in-law namely Mr. Girishbhai Mahdevbhai Sanjira was playing betting on cricket matches due to which he was under the debt of Rs.60,00,000/- to 70,00,000/- and because of such huge debt on Mr.Girish Mahadevbhai Sanjira, his elder brother Mr. Rajubhai Mahadevbhai Sanjira, who is the husband of complainant, on his credit in society, borrowed Rs.65,25,000/- from known persons on high interest. It is further the case that the total number of persons from whom they have borrowed money is 18 and all said 18 persons are named as accused in the present case. It is also the case of the complainant that at the time of borrowing such huge amount, all the 18 accused persons forcefully took certain blank cheques from them and that they have paid all the borrowed money with interest to all the accused persons but because of the blank cheques signed by them, all accused use to approach their home daily and ask for money and verbally abused them. It is also the case that because of above mentioned points, her husband Mr. Rajubhai Mahadevbhai Sanjira has gone away from home on 22.02.2013 around 3:30 p.m. and she has filed a missing report of her husband with Isanpur Police Station on 23.02.2013 as the complainant is under the fear that all those 18 persons from whom they have borrowed money, will murder her husband or give physical & mental harassment because of which her husband will be compelled to suicide. It is in these circumstances that the FIR came to be filed and after carrying out investigation, the Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 21:46:33 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/975/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined Investigating Officer filed the charge-sheet which culminated into Criminal Case No.274 of 2013 and is pending before the learned Magistrate. The present applicant - original accused No.14 and another co-accused i.e. accused No.13 filed discharge application Exh.26 under Section 239 of the CrPC, which came to be dismissed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.1, Ahmedabad. Hence, being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the applicant has preferred the present revision application.
[4.0] Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the learned Magistrate has committed an error in dismissing the discharge application though the applicant - accused has not committed any offence and as even looking to the facts of the FIR and charge sheet papers, no prima facie offence is made out against the present applicant. He has further submitted that the allegations made in the FIR and charge sheet have not been supported by any evidence and there are material contradictions in statements of the complainant and all other witnesses. He has further argued that the complainant has alleged in the complaint about offence of kidnapping and extortion against the applicant - accused but, as per the statement of Mr.Rajubhai Mahadevbhai Sanjira, who was kidnapped as per complainant, himself has stated that none of the accused persons has given any threat or kidnapped him or beaten him. Further, after recording of the statement of Mr. Rajubhai Mahadevbhai Sonjira by the Investigating Officer and as per the definition of extortion under section 383 of the IPC, there is no case of extortion in the present case, as the applicant (accused) asking for their own money which was borrowed by the complainant's husband & brother in-laws. He has further argued that based on the statements of Mr. Rajubhai Mahadevbhai Sanjira, there is absolutely no prima facie case against Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 21:46:33 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/975/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined the present applicant. Further, even as per the statement of Mr. Rajubhai Mahadevbhai Sanjira, it is clear that he borrowed Rs.1,50,000/- and he has returned the same to accused No.13 and that he borrowed Rs.16,00,000/- from present applicant and has returned the amount of Rs.11,00,000/- and rest of the money has been paid. The said witness has further stated that the cheque which was found from the present applicant, signed by them and amount mentioned on the cheque is Rs.5,00,000/-. So Rs.11,00,000/- + Rs. 5,00,000/- = Rs.16,00,000/- is the total amount which is exactly the same to the amount which Mr. Rajubhai Sanjira borrowed from the present applicant and therefore, there is no question regarding the disputed borrowed money & hence offence registered under Mumbai Money Lending Act is not sustainable under the law. Therefore, he has requested to allow the present application.
[5.0] Learned APP for the respondent No.1 - State of Gujarat and learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.2 have vehemently opposed the present application by submitting that the learned Magistrate has not committed any offence and therefore, have requested to dismiss the present application.
[6.0] Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perusing the record, it prima facie appears that the complainant has lodged the complaint in connection of the fact that her brother in law namely Girishbhai Mahdevbhai Sanjira lost in cricket betting and to pay debt of Rs.70 lakh towards cricket betting, her brother in law and her husband both have taken loan of Rs.65.25 lakh from different accused total 18 in number and as per the allegations levelled against the accused, the accused persons used to exert pressure and have put the husband of the complainant under Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 21:46:33 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/975/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined fear though the accused persons have received exorbitant rate of interest and also administered threat due to which the husband of the complainant left his home. In this regard, the offence was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 384, 385, 506(1), 294(b), 114 and 120(B) of the IPC and under Sections 5, 7 and 33 of the Mumbai Money Lenders Act.
[6.1] Perusing the allegations levelled in the complaint and the charge-sheet papers, it appears that offence is registered in connection with borrowing of Rs.65.25 lakh against the accused persons wherein present applicant is arraigned as accused No.14 however, no specific role is attributed to the applicant in the charge- sheet by the Investigating Officer. If we peruse the order of learned Magistrate, the order is silent and general provisions of the Act are referred to but not a whisper about the involvement of the present applicant is made in the impugned order that despite of the fact that the husband of the complainant had paid the amount with interest though blank cheques came to be extorted and husband of complainant was put under fear and threat to be done away with. If we peruse the record and the impugned order, it appears that husband of the complainant voluntarily left his home on 22.02.2013 in connection with which missing report came to be filed with Isanpur Police Station wherein the complainant has stated that 18 persons from whom the husband of the complainant had borrowed money will murder her husband or give physical or mental harassment because of which the husband of complainant will be compelled to commit suicide and the complainant has also alleged that 18 accused persons have kidnapped her husband and if extortion money will not be provided to them, they will kill her husband. But, perusing the record, it appears that the husband of the complainant voluntarily left the Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 21:46:33 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/975/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined home and then she went to different places and stayed for 15 days in Mahakumbh and after some time, he voluntarily returned back to home and thereafter, recording the statement of husband of complainant as well as of the complainant, the missing report was disposed of as 'filed'. Hence, the allegation of kidnapping is not made out.
[6.2] Now, so far as allegation qua offence of extortion is concerned, if we peruse the complaint, allegations are levelled against 18 person and allegation against the applicant is that the husband of the complainant had borrowed Rs.16 lakh however, the version of the complainant itself shows that her husband had paid Rs.11 lakh to the present applicant and one signed cheque of Rs.5 lakh from the present applicant was recovered which itself shows that money given by the present applicant to the husband of the complainant was only for the purpose of helping the younger brother Girishbhai of the husband of the complainant and therefore, the question as regards disputed borrowed money does not arise. Further, so far as allegation that the applicant lent huge amount without there being any license is concerned, it is the case of the applicant that he being relative, in order to help the younger brother Girishbhai of the husband of the complainant had lent the said amount against which the applicant received Rs.11 lakh and towards remaining Rs.5 lakh, cheque was issued which has been recovered from the applicant by drawing panchnama wherein same cheque of the Account No.29090100018142 drawn on Bank of Baroda, Isanpur Branch is mentioned. Except this, no recovery or discovery made from the present applicant. Even, the said panchnama was drawn in presence of panch witness on 21.03.2013 and thus the amount tallies with Rs.16 lakh. Considering the aforesaid fact, prima facie, it appears that transaction in question is a money Page 6 of 9 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 21:46:33 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/975/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined transaction wherein money was borrowed and to pay the said amount, cheque was issued. Hence, no any allegation qua extortion or putting the husband of the complainant under fear or intentionally putting husband of the complainant in fear of injury to dishonestly induce him to deliver the cheque and compelled the husband of the complainant to deliver the said cheque and in absence of any such evidence or iota of evidence, no offence under Section 385 or 386 of the IPC is made out as no any allegation gets substantiated from the investigation papers so as to attract the offence of extortion defined under Section 383 of the IPC.
[6.3] Even, the learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the co-accused had filed the consent quashing after recording of conviction in connection with proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act which has been allowed and proceedings have been quashed and set aside in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the CrPC against the co-accused.
[6.4] Further, it is pertinent to note that, to establish charges of criminal conspiracy under section 120 of the IPC, there must be an agreement, either expressed or implied. And for that, no proof of direct meeting or communication is needed. There must be active cooperation. In other words, joint evil intent is mandatory. When any act is done even though it is lawful but done by illegal means, it constitutes criminal conspiracy. The first ingredient of criminal conspiracy is agreement between two or more persons. This agreement is the crux of the offence and can be explicit or implicit, written or oral. The second essential component is the intention to commit an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means. The intent should be directly related to the outcome that the conspirators plan to Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 21:46:33 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/975/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined achieve. The essential ingredients of criminal conspiracy are: (i) An agreement between two or more persons; (ii) The agreement must be related to doing or causing to be done either (a) an illegal act and (b) an act that is not illegal in itself but is done by illegal means; (iii) The agreement may be expressed or implied or partly expressed and partly implied; (iv) As soon as the agreement is made, the conspiracy arises, and the offence is committed and (v) the same offence is continued to be committed so long as the combination persists. It is needless to say that so far as the allegation of conspiracy is concerned, it is very difficult to collect any direct evidence of conspiracy. From the material collected or the evidence adduced on record, inference of conspiracy is required to be drawn. Herein, as discussed above, no offence under Sections 385 or 386 of the IPC is made out and therefore, offence of conspiracy is also not made out.
[6.5] Insofar as allegation of offence punishable under Section 506(1) of the IPC is concerned, it is needless to say that before an offence of criminal intimidation is made out, it must be established that the accused had an intention to cause alarm to the complainant. Herein, there is nothing on record to establish that the applicant had intimidated the complainant and/or her husband. In this regard, reference is required to be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohammad Wajid and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 624: 2023 INSC 683.
[7.0] Now, so far as offence for violation of any of the provisions under the Money Lenders Act is concerned, no competent authority has lodged the complaint or no any permission is accorded by the authority or no any evidence collected during the investigation which suggests that applicant has charged and made demand of exorbitant Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 21:46:33 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/975/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined rate of interest and tried to extort the money from the complainant or witnesses.
[8.0] In wake of aforesaid conspectus, present revision application is allowed. Impugned order dated 14.02.2019 passed below Exh.26 by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.1, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No.274/2013 is hereby quashed and set aside qua the present applicant - ASHOKKUMAR TEKCHANDBHAI RATHI and the applicant herein is discharged from the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 384, 385, 506(1), 294(b), 114 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 5, 7 and 33 of the Mumbai Money Lenders Act. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Record & Proceedings, if any, be returned back to the concerned Court. Direct service is permitted.
Sd/-
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.) Ajay Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 21:46:33 IST 2026