Gujarat High Court
Patel Agency Through Its Proprietor ... vs Shri Rajendrasinh Bahadursinh ... on 7 April, 2025
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/935/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONTEMPT) NO. 935 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2244 of 2013
==========================================================
PATEL AGENCY THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR RAJANI VALLABHBHAI PATEL
Versus
SHRI RAJENDRASINH BAHADURSINH SARVAIYA , POLICE OFFICER & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. SHALIN MEHTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR NIRAV C SANGHAVI
(5950) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS. NIRALI SARDA, AGP for the Respondent
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 07/04/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. Present application is filed seeking initiation of contempt
proceedings against the respondents under the provisions of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
2. The prayer clause does not refer as to whether the contempt
proceedings are initiated under the provision of Section 2(b) or 2(c) of
the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 which defines "civil contempt" and
"criminal contempt" respectively. Be that as it may, the application is
premised on a decade older order dated 04.03.2013 passed in Special
Civil Application No.2244 of 2013 by the learned Single Judge.
3. It is the case of the present applicant that despite the directions
issued by the learned Single Judge in the said order dated 04.03.2013,
the respondent authorities have registered an FIR under the Gambling
Act against 15 persons, including the present applicant on 02.12.2024.
4. Learned senior advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta appearing with
learned advocate Mr. Nirav C. Sanghavi for the applicant, has also
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/935/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/04/2025
undefined
referred to the judgment dated 09.10.2014 passed in Letters Patent
Appeal No.1137 of 2014 in case of one Yogesh Kantilal Kalani, and has
submitted that the registration of the FIR is in teeth of the direction
issued by this Court, both by the learned Single Judge and Division
Bench, and hence, it is urged that the proceedings under the
Contempt of Courts Act may be initiated.
5. We have heard learned senior advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta
appearing with learned advocate Mr. Nirav C. Sanghavi for the
applicant and have also perused the averments made in the
application as well as the prayer clause.
6. The prayer clause reads as under:
"(A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to admit and
allow the present application and initiating proceedings
under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act against
the opponents and punish the opponents for having not
complied with and willfully disobeying the directions issued
by this Hon'ble Court in Special Civil Application No.2244
OF 2013, vide order dated 04.03.2013 by launching
malicious criminal prosecution on 02.12.2024".
7. Thus, from the prayer clause, it is evident that the present
applicant is seeking initiation of contempt of courts proceedings for
willful and deliberate disobedience of the directions issued by the
learned Single Judge in the order dated 04.03.2013 passed in Special
Civil Application No.2244 of 2013 i.e. almost a decade back. Reliance
is placed on the directions issued in Paragraph No.15 of the said
order. The same reads as under:
"(a) The respondents Authorities are directed not to obstruct
the business of the petitioner in any manner and his
business is not considered as activity of Gambling.
(b) It is required to be noted that though the business
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/935/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/04/2025
undefined
activities of the petitioner, as described in the petition, cannot
be considered as gambling, the respondent Authorities
have right to enter into the business premises of the petitioner,
in discharge of their duty. Therefore, the prayer made by the
petitioner to restrain the respondents from entering into
premises of the petitioner cannot be granted and it is rejected."
8. It is urged by the applicant that the respondent authorities by
filing the FIR dated 02.12.2024 has committed contempt of court. The
FIR dated 02.12.2024 has been filed against 15 persons and the
present applicant is accused no.15, who is the proprietor of the
applicant Firm.
9. The FIR has been registered at Ghogha Road Police Station,
District-Bhavnagar, under the provision of Sections 4 and 5 of the
Gambling Act. The same reads as under:
"4. Whoever-- (a)21 [opens, keeps or uses any house, room or
place], for the purpose of a common gaming-house,
(b) being the owner or occupier of any such house, room or place
knowingly or wilfully permits the same to be opened, occupied,
kept or used by any other person for the purpose aforesaid,
(c) has the care or management of, or in any manner assists in
conducting the business of, any such house, room, or place
opened, occupied, kept or used for the purpose aforesaid,
(d) advances or furnishes money for the purpose of gaming with
persons frequenting any such house, room or place,
[shall, on conviction, be punishable with imprisonment
[which may extend to two years] and with fine:
Provided that-- (a) for a first offence such imprisonment shall
not be less than 24 [three months and fine shall not be less than
five hundred rupees];
(b) for second offence such imprisonment shall not be less than
[six months and fine shall not be less than one thousand two
hundred rupees]; and
(c) for a third or subsequent offence such imprisonment shall
not be lass than 26 [one year and fine shall not be less than two
thousand rupees.]]
[(2) Nothing contained in the provisions of the Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958 or in sub-sections (1), (4), (5) and (6) of
section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall apply
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/935/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/04/2025
undefined
to any person convicted under this section.]
5. 28 [Whoever is found in any common gaming-house gaming or
present for the purpose of gaming, 29[shall, on conviction, be
punishable with imprisonment 30[which may extend to nine
months] and with fine:
Provided that--
(a) for a first offence such imprisonment shall not be less
than 31 [two months and fine shall not be less than three
hundred rupees];
(b) for a second offence such imprisonment shall not be less
than 32[four months and fine shall not be less than three
hundred rupees]; and
(c) for a third or subsequent offence such imprisonment
shall not be less than 33 [nine months and fine shall not be
less than three hundred rupees.]]] Any person found in any
common gaming-house during any gaming 34 * * therein
shall be presumed, until the contrary 35[is proved], to have
been there for the purposed.
[5A. Where--
(i) in any area for which a Commissioner of Police has been
appointed, a police officer not below the rank of a Deputy
Commissioner of Police, and
(ii) elsewhere, a police officer not below the rank of a Deputy
Superintendent of Police,
is of the opinion that any register, record or writing of any kind
whatsoever which contains 37 [pictures, digits or figures or
combination of pictures, digits or figures] relates to Worli Matka
gaming or some other form of gaming, he shall be entitled to
seize the same, and such register, record or writing shall be
presumed to be an instrument of gaming unless it is shown by
the person from whom it is seized that it is a register, record or
writing of any transaction in connection with a lawful trade,
industry, business, profession or vocation or of any lawful
personal transaction of any person or it is otherwise not an
instrument of gaming. "
10. The directions issued by the learned Single Judge is in the case
of one H. S. Online Marketing Private Limited through the Director,
whereas the present application has been filed by Patel Agency,
through its Proprietor, Rajani Vallabhbhai Patel, who is accused no.15.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/935/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/04/2025
undefined
From the document at Page No.33, the Franchisee Agreement shows
that H. S. Online Marketing Private Limited has given the franchisee
to M/s. Patel Agency, of whom Rajani Vallabhbhai Patel is the
proprietor in the year 2019, much after the order dated dated
04.03.2013 of which defiance is sought. Thus, the applicant wants to
initiate contempt proceedings on filing of the FIR in the year of 2024,
i.e. after almost 10 years of passing of the order dated 04.03.2013.
11. While examining the proceedings under the Contempt of
Courts Act, the Court cannot delve into the directions, which have
been issued a decade back in the case of H. S. Online Marketing
Private Limited that too by comparing and examining the contents of
the FIR dated 02.12.2024, which has been registered against 15
accused. The applicant cannot be allowed to take shelter under the
order dated 04.03.2013, which was in context of another FIR. The
passing of the order dated 04.03.2013, cannot be preclude, the
respondent authorities from registering a fresh FIR under the
Gambling Act and after a period of 10 years. There is no complete ban
on registering the offence after the judgment dated 04.03.2013
passed in Special Civil Application No.2244 of 2013. The sword of
contempt proceedings cannot be kept hanging on the respondents
after the passing of the order dated 04.03.2013. Thus, while
exercising the contempt jurisdiction, this Court cannot delve into the
nature of offence registered against the applicant and other accused
and hold the respondents guilty of committing contempt.
12. In case, the respondent authorities find that an offence is
committed, it can always register an FIR under the relevant provisions
of the Act. The judgment and order of the Division Bench dated
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/935/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/04/2025
undefined
09.10.2014 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.1137 of 2014 cannot
also rescue the present applicant. A bare perusal of the aforesaid
judgment and order reveals that the same emanates from the interim
order passed by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench has
ultimately disposed of the Letters Patent Appeal by keeping the
rights and contentions of both the sides open in the writ petition, in
which Letters Patent Appeal No.1137 of 2014 has been filed. The
applicant and two others have already filed Criminal Misc. Application
No.256 of 2025 seeking quashing of the FIR before this Court.
13. Thus, the application in the present incarnation cannot be
entertained, and the same is hopelessly meritless. Hence, by
registration of the FIR, the respondents have neither committed any
civil or criminal contempt, and there is absolutely no willful or
deliberate disobedience of the directions issued by the learned Single
Judge vide order dated 04.03.2013 passed in the captioned writ
petition. Hence, the present application fails and the same is rejected.
14. It goes without saying that the observations made by this Court
in the present application may not be construed detrimental to the
interest of the present applicant in the quashing proceedings.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
(NISHA M. THAKORE,J)
SUYASH SRIVASTAVA/14
