Gujarat High Court
Shaileshgiri Mohangiri Meghnathi vs State Of Gujarat on 28 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5981/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 5981 of 2013
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 6371 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
SHAILESHGIRI MOHANGIRI MEGHNATHI & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR DIPAL R RAVAIYA(6532) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR.RONAK RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 28/04/2026
JUDGMENT
1. The present application is filed for quashment of the FIR being I-CR No.54 of 2013 registered with Keshod Police Station.
2. As per the allegations of the complainant namely Rajendrabhai S/o Tribhuvandas Gondhiya who is the partner of unregistered firm being Raj Cinema having three other partners namely Tribhuvandas Anandji Gondhiya, Nirmalaben Tribhuvandas Gondhiya and Page 1 of 22 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:09:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/5981/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined Jayesh Tribhuvandas Gondhiya. The complainant and the partners wanted to cancel the license of Raj Cinema and to develop the property. For the said purpose, the complainant was in need of money and has approached to the accused no.1, who was an advocate but practicing in money lending business, without license. The complainant conveyed his desire to get the finance and it was conveyed by the accused no.1 that he would lend amount of Rs.8,00,000/- out of which first Rs.6,00,000/- was given and thereafter, Rs.2,00,000/- was given and when Rs.6,00,000/- was lent the complainant has executed Satakhat on 07.12.2011. At the time of lending amount of Rs.2,00,000/- the accused no.1 had taken original documents in the month of February, 2012. It was subsequently conveyed that the amount of Rs.8,00,000/- was given as an investment, as the accused no.1 wanted to invest in the partnership firm of the complainant. It was conveyed that at present he gave amount of Rs.8,00,000/- and on cancellation of license of Raj Cinema, he would further invest the amount. It was further conveyed that only for security purpose this Satakhat is executed.
Page 2 of 22 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:09:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/5981/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined 2.1. The license of Raj Cinema came to be canceled on 31.03.2012 and it was conveyed to the accused no.1 to invest further amount and to be the partner of the firm. The accused no.1 has informed that he does not wish to being partner of the partnership firm therefore, the complainant has conveyed that whatever amount he invested be taken back so that he could search for another partner who would invest be amount. The said aspect was conveyed in the month of August, 2012 and accused no.1 has informed that as now the amount is to be paid of Rs.21,00,000/- as same would be having interest on the amount which was borrowed of Rs.8,00,000/-. It is further conveyed by the complainant that he does not have that much amount and thereafter the accused no.1 conveyed to the complainant to meet with accused no.4 and whatever amount the accused no.1 and 2 would say he may give cheque so that transaction with the accused no.1 with regard to principal amount with interest would be calculated. The complainant was in need of original documents therefore he gave the 2 cheques of Rs.8,00,000/- to accused no. 2 and 2 cheques of Rs.8,00,000/- to accused no.3, who are Page 3 of 22 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:09:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/5981/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined brothers. It is conveyed to the complainant that accused no.4 has to execute the agreement with regard to three flats which now would be executed with the complainant which was also not done therefore, the complainant has demanded cheque which was taken by the accused no.2 and 3 which was denied and the complainant was threatened to face dire consequences. It is conveyed that the accused no. 4 and 5 have taken the signature on the promissory notes as well as signature on the different documents. It is further alleged in the complaint that one advertisement was published in the Sandesh Newspaper on 28.02.2013 through advocate Mr.K.B.Singhvi wherein on the basis of bogus Power of Attorney the page no.2 was changed, 1/4th share was transferred to accused no.3 who is the mother of the accused no.1 and 2. With above allegations, the impugned FIR is lodged, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr.Ashish Dagli for the applicants no.1, 2 and 3 as well as the learned advocate Mr.Dipal Ravaiya for the complainant-respondent no.2 and learned APP Mr.Ronak Raval for the respondent- Page 4 of 22 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:09:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/5981/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined State.
3.1. It is submitted advocate Mr.Ashish Dagli that on bare reading of the FIR, it is clear that no role is attributed to the present applicant who are arraigned as accused no.1, 2 and 3 and the dispute which is narrated in the FIR appears to be civil in nature. It is contented by learned advocate Mr.Ashish Dagli that the applicant admits that that he entered into the agreement to sale with applicant no.1 and thereafter, he had given Power of Attorney of the managing the affairs of the property to applicant no.2. As per the allegations made in the FIR, page no.2 of the said Power of Attorney was changed however, even if that would be considered as a Gospel Truth nothing turns on the contents of page no.2. It is submitted by learned advocate that the applicant no.3 entered into valid sale deed with applicant no.2 as Power of Attorney of the complainant and also paid corresponding stamp duty. It is submitted by learned advocate Mr.Ashish Dagli that the applicant no.1 has also executed an agreement documenting the payment of money as well as handing over the possession to the applicant no.1. The entire chain of events clearly Page 5 of 22 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:09:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/5981/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined highlights that applicants are bonafide purchaser in the value of 1/4th share of the property in question wherein, applicant no.1 is stated to be confirming party. It is submitted by learned advocate Mr.Ashish Dagli the documents which is alleged to have been positive was executed in the year 2011 however, the FIR came to be lodged in the month of April 2013. It is submitted that the impugned FIR which is delayed for more than one year without offering any explanation is nothing but an after thought with a view to extort more money from the applicants. It is submitted by learned advocate Mr.Ashish Dagli that the complainant and did not deny the power of attorney except vague allegations of page no.2 being changed. The dispute which is civil in nature is given the colour of criminal after the delay of our 1 year and in that background impugned FIR is nothing but abuse of process of law which is required to be quashed.
3.2. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Ravaiya, appearing for the complainant, has submitted that on bare reading of the FIR it clearly goes to show that applicants along with other accused persons had hatched conspiracy and Page 6 of 22 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:09:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/5981/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined forged Power of Attorney of complainant and using the two same to be genuine executed registered sale deed in favour of their mother-accused no.2. It is submitted by learned advocate Mr.Ravaiya that applicants have been involved in criminal activities and are facing many offences of identical nature of land grabbing. It is submitted by learned advocate Mr.Ravaiya that on perusal of the Power of Attorney, which is forged, prima facie reflects that page no.2 is changed and signature made in the bottom is also forged. It is submitted that on every page, except page no.2, there is date/ seal put by the notary however, only on page no.2, which is subsequently changed, the said date/ seal does not reflect. It is submitted by learned advocate Mr.Ravaiya that page no.3 of Power of Attorney suggests that accused Mohangiri Meghnathi is not required to make any transaction with regard to consideration as well as possession of the property in question. This fact clearly shows that Power of Attorney, which was executed for the purpose of security, was subsequently used by changing the page no.2 and by adding the clause with regard to giving powers to transfer the property. It is Page 7 of 22 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:09:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/5981/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined submitted that as investigation is at large and considering the history of the applicants, the investigation is required to be concluded so that, truth can surface on record.
3.3. Learned APP Mr.Ronak Raval, in support of the submission of learned advocate for the complainant, submits that the statement recorded during the course of investigation supports the allegation of the present complainant. It is submitted that during the course of investigation it comes on record that the present applicants are doing the business of money lending without having any license. To verify genuineness of Power of Attorney specimen were taken and the Investigating Officer is intended to send the same before the hand writing expert to compare the signature with page no.2 of the Power of Attorney. It is submitted that there are five different offences registered against the applicant no.1, in that background, no interference is required at this stage and the application is required to be dismissed.
4. Having considered the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties and on referring the Page 8 of 22 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:09:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/5981/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined allegations made in the FIR, wherein, the sum and substance of the allegations reflects that the complainant was in need of money and after lending the amount of Rs.8,00,000/- the applicant has taken the original sale deed of the property and has executed Satakhat under the guise of security. As per the allegations, number of other documents including Power of Attorney was also signed by the present applicant. 4.1. On referring the said document, which is part of the memo of petition, it suggest that Satakhat without possession was executed between the applicant namely Shaileshgiri Mohangiri Aparnathi and complainant, who is the partner of Raj Cinema. On referring the Satakhat, emerges that the complainant has executed Satakhat for the consideration of Rs.15,00,000/- for his 1/4th share of the partnership property. He admits that payment of Rs.8,00,000/- is received and on payment of amount of Rs.7,00,000/- sale deed has to be executed. The said Satakhat is dated 07.12.2011 and was registered before the Sub-register. Another document namely amended Satakhat was executed as there was a mistake in referring the name of the applicant no.1 and instead of Page 9 of 22 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:09:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/5981/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined mentioning Shaileshgiri Mohangiri Meghnathi it was referred as Shaileshgiri Mohangiri Aparnathi. The said amendment Satakhat was registered on 08.12.2011. The Power of Attorney was notarized on the same day i.e 08.12.2011 giving powers to Mohangiri Harigiri Meghnathi and Nishantgiri Mohangiri Meghnathi who is accused no.2. On referring the Power of Attorney, it is alleged that page no.2 is changed. To ascertain the said fact, it would be beneficial to reproduce the page 2 and 3, which is as under:
Page 10 of 22 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:09:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/5981/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined 4.2. It emerges that except on page 2 of each page there is a stamp of the notary with date/ seal whereas, on page 2 only the stamp of the notary is there and on verifying the signature which is on page 2 as well as on the remaining pages, it emerges that there is a visible difference on the Page 11 of 22 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:09:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/5981/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined said signature.
5. Now, to ascertain whether on changing the page no.2 anything turns out on the same, it appears that on page no.2 there is a paragraph no.2 wherein, powers were given with regard to selling of the property to register document, to make a signature and to get the permission from government or semi government authorities. On the next page, wherein the signature is not be disputed it says that through this Power of Attorney there is no exchange of sale consideration nor any possession was given. Again in para 3, the reference of purpose of giving the powers is mentioned i.e to engage an advocate, to initiate any court proceeding etc. It is doubtful that the purpose of giving Power of Attorney why it is referred in two paragraphs wherein, the previous page all the powers with regard to sale given then again there is no need to mention with regard to giving powers again for the purpose of Court proceeding. Additionally, to mention with regard to the purpose of Power of Attorney for any non sale consideration also create doubt in the mind. It is submitted that nothing turns even if the page 2 is accepted to have been changed. On referring the Page 12 of 22 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:09:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/5981/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined above Power of Attorney, in the opinion of this Court, no powers for sale would get if the page no.2 is not changed. At the same time, as per the allegations, signature on other were also taken which were subsequently considered as kabja sompni karar. On referring the said document, which is dated 08.12.2011 it reflects that same date where Power of Attorney is authorised and amended Satakhat was also executed with the Registrar. When the Power of Attorney, is referred, there is no possession given, the kabja sompani which is of the same date i.e 08.12.2011 also appears to have lost confidence, more particularly, when allegation made of taking signature on other paper, which is not made to understand him.
5.1. The Investigating Officer has submitted that during the course of investigation the statement of witness Uday Rupare, Sohil Memon were recorded to dispute the signature in the Power of Attorney as a witness. It is submitted by the Investigating Officer that they are intending to send this Power of Attorney to the handwriting experts.
6. At the stage, this Court has referred the decision of the Page 13 of 22 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:09:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/5981/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined Apex Court in the case of Sharla Bazliel Vs Baldev Thakur and Ors. reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 396 wherein, in an identical case this Court has observed that once the Court was apprised that investigation into the genuineness of the signatures on the disputed/questioned documents was being undertaken and the signatures were in the process of being analysed by the SFSL, there was no reason whatsoever for the High Court to have proceeded to quash the FIR by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC. The relevant paragraphs is reproduced hereinbelow:
16. We may observe that where allegations of forgery are set out in the FIR and Investigating Agency has undertaken the exercise of getting the disputed documents examined through the handwriting expert, an order quashing the FIR without awaiting the outcome of the handwriting expert's report would be totally unjustified.
17. While deciding the quashing petitions, the learned Single Judge took note of the fact that the relevant documents had been taken into possession and had been sent to the SFSL for analysis. However, this vital aspect of the matter was completely glossed over by the learned Single Judge while quashing the FIR. Once the Court was apprised that investigation into the genuineness of the signatures on the disputed/questioned documents was being undertaken and the signatures were in the process of being analysed by the SFSL, there Page 14 of 22 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:09:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/5981/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined was no reason whatsoever for the High Court to have proceeded to quash the FIR by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.
18. Resultantly, we are of the firm opinion that the High Court prematurely quashed and terminated the proceedings arising out of the FIR filed by the appellant-complainant despite clear allegations establishing the offences of fraud, falsification of documents, forgery and criminal breach of trust. Sofar as the observation made by the High Court that the appellant had earlier filed FIR against her own father is concerned, it may be noted that the said FIR was in relation to an entirely different allegation, namely that her father had attempted to usurp the property of her grandfather by fabricating his signatures.
19. The High Court relied on this Court's decision in Mir Nagvi Askari v. CBI, and observed that the prosecution is required to prove that the accused had forged the document by creating a false document.
20. We feel that the reliance placed by the High Court on the aforesaid judgment to quash the FIR, despite taking note of the fact that the Investigating Agency had sought the report of the handwriting expert, was wholly unjustified. The questioned documents having already been forwarded for examination, the proof of forgery would evidently depend upon the outcome of the comparison to be conducted by the handwriting expert. Thus, the aspects relating to the creation of false documents and the commission of forgery were still under investigation when the High Court prematurely proceeded to quash the FIR.
21. As a matter of fact, as per the specific averments made in the Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 2498 of 2025, filed on behalf of the State of Himachal Pradesh, the SFSL report has been received which concludes that the signatures on the questioned documents are Page 15 of 22 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:09:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/5981/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined facsimile stamps i.e., not the handwritten signatures of the father of respondent No. 4 (appellant-complainant). Apparently, thus the investigation has resulted into credible evidence establishing that the documents on the strength whereof the properties were transferred in favour of the accused bore forged signatures of the appellant- complainant's father, namely, Dr. G.B. Bazliel.
22. We further find that the judgment in Mir Nagvi Askari (supra), relied upon by the High Court, was neither relevant nor applicable to the facts of the present case. Since the report of the handwriting expert had not yet been received, it was premature to record any finding on falsification of documents and forgery. In such circumstances, the prosecution of the accused persons could not have been stifled at the threshold by the exercise of powers under Sections 482 CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
23. A specific allegation was made by the appellant-complainant that deposits of her father's and mother's bank accounts were usurped by the accused by fraudulently posing as nominees. These allegations, prima facie, constitute the offence of fraud and criminal misappropriation. Hence, we are of the firm opinion that the allegations as set out in the FIR and the material collected by the Investigating Officer is amply sufficient to proceed against the accused, and it was not a case warranting the exercise of inherent powers of the High Court to quash the FIR.
24. As a consequence, we find it difficult to sustain the impugned judgment and final order dated 8th January, 2024, which is accordingly set aside.
6.1. Additionally it is pointed out that the applicants are having past history. The details of the antecedents of applicants are referred hereinbelow:Page 16 of 22 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:09:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/5981/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined Applicants FIR No. Under section
1. Shaileshgiri I-C.R.No.132 of 2006 406, 465, 467, 471 of Mohangiri Meghnathi dated 19.5.2006. IPC
2.Mohangiri Harigiri Meghnathi
3. Shardaben W/o Mohangiri Harigiri Meghnathi
1. Shaileshgiri C.R.No.140 of 2006 406, 465, 467, 384 and Mohangiri Meghnathi dated 26.5.2006. 511 of IPC and
2.Mohangiri Harigiri Sections 5, 33 and 34 Meghnathi of the Prevention of
3. Shardaben W/o Money Laundering Act Mohangiri Harigiri Meghnathi Shaileshgiri Mohangiri I-C.R.No.148 406, 465, 467, 384 and Meghnathi of 2006 dated 511 of IPC and 10.6.2006. Sections 5, 33 and 34 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act Shaileshgiri Mohangiri I-C.R.No.199 of 2006 406, 465, 467, 384 and Meghnathi dated 14.8.2006. 511 of IPC and Sections 5, 33 and 34 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act Shaileshgiri Mohangiri I-C.R.No.203 of 2006 406, 465, 467, 384 and Meghnathi dated 21.8.2006. 511 of IPC and Sections 5, 33 and 34 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 6.2. It is true that merely having antecedence would not Page 17 of 22 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:09:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/5981/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined disentitle the applicants from quashment of FIR if no cognizable case is made out however, the factual background referred hereinabove along with the criminal history of the applicant suggests that the quashment of FIR would be very premature and considering the allegations, the FIR is required to be logically ended.
7. At this stage this Court refers in the case of Accamma Sam Jacob vs The State of Karnataka & Anr.
reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 585 wherein, the Apex Court has held as under:
"53. In such circumstances, the High Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction, should not travel beyond the allegations contained in the complaint and the material placed by the complainant by delving into the defences sought to be projected by the accused-respondents.
54. The facts in the case at hand manifest that the High Court proceeded to examine documents relied upon by the accused- respondents, including the sale deeds executed in their favour, and treated the same as determinative of the dispute and observed that the sale deeds must be cancelled and delivered up first, before the criminal law could be set into motion. Such an exercise was clearly beyond the permissible scope of scrutiny in a petition for quashing under Section 482 of CrPC. Consideration of defence material, including sale deeds or other title documents would necessarily involve adjudication on disputed questions of fact, which fall squarely Page 18 of 22 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:09:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/5981/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined within the domain of investigation and, if necessary, trial. Any such exercise at the stage of Section 156(3) of CrPC would amount to conducting a mini-trial and would be wholly impermissible. Permitting such defence material to be weighed at the threshold would frustrate and defeat the very purpose of directing an investigation by the police.
55. This Court has, time and again, emphasised that criminal investigation ought not to be scuttled at the threshold except in cases where the complaint ex facie does not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence or where continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The power of the High Court under Section 482 of CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interdict investigation is to be exercised with great circumspection, bearing in mind the statutory duty of the investigating agency to inquire into cognizable offences. The said position has been eruditely explained by this Court in Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, wherein it was observed as under: -
"In a given case, there may be allegations of abuse of process of law by converting a civil dispute into a criminal dispute, only with a view to pressurise the accused. Similarly, in a given case the complaint itself on the face of it can be said to be barred by law. The allegations in the FIR/complaint may not at all disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. In such cases and in exceptional cases with circumspection, the High Court may stay the further investigation. However, at the same time, there may be genuine complaints/FIRs and the police/investigating agency has a statutory obligation/right/duty to enquire into the cognizable offences. Therefore, a balance has to be struck between the rights of the genuine complainants and the FIRs disclosing Page 19 of 22 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:09:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/5981/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined commission of a cognizable offence and the statutory obligation/duty of the investigating agency to investigate into the cognizable offences on the one hand and those innocent persons against whom the criminal proceedings are initiated which may be in a given case abuse of process of law and the process. However, if the facts are hazy and the investigation has just begun, the High Court would be circumspect in exercising such powers and the High Court must permit the investigating agency to proceed further with the investigation in exercise of its statutory duty under the provisions of the Code." [Emphasis supplied] Applying the aforesaid principles to the case at hand, it becomes evident that the High Court has transgressed the well-settled boundaries governing the exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC at the threshold stage. The order impugned before the High Court was one passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of CrPC, whereby the police were merely directed to register an FIR and to undertake investigation in accordance with law. At such a stage, the Court is only required to ascertain whether the allegations in the complaint disclose the commission of a cognizable offence warranting investigation.
56. In the facts and circumstances noted above, it was not at all justified for the High Court to have quashed proceedings merely on the ground that the dispute appeared to be civil in nature. It is well settled that the mere existence of a civil remedy does not by itself bar criminal proceedings where the allegations prima facie disclose commission of a cognizable offence. By entering into an evaluation of the dispute on merits and proceeding to quash the order directing investigation, the High Court effectively stifled the investigative process at its inception. Such an approach runs contrary to the Page 20 of 22 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:09:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/5981/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined principles consistently laid down by this Court.
57. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court clearly fell into error while quashing the proceedings at a stage when the Magistrate had merely directed registration of FIR and investigation under Section 156(3) of CrPC (Corresponding to Section 175(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023).
58. Accordingly, the common impugned judgment and order dated 28th September, 2016, passed by the High Court is set aside. The FIRs and the proceedings arising therefrom are revived and restored to the file of the concerned Police Station and/or Magistrate, for being proceeded in accordance with law."
8. Considering the overall circumstances in the opinion of this Court, the investigation is not required to be scuttled at the threshold, more particularly when, it discloses the commission of cognizable offence and in that background, it cannot be said that the continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law. In that background, this application deserves to be dismissed.
9. Resultantly, the present application is dismissed.
10. Learned advocate Mr.Jaypalsinh Vaghela, for learned advocate Mr.Ashish Dagli, has requested for extension of protection which is granted. However, considering the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Neeharika Page 21 of 22 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:09:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/5981/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined Infrastructure (P) Ltd. (Supra), where such practice is deprecated, the request is not acceded to.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) ARCHANA S. PILLAI Page 22 of 22 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:09:04 IST 2026