Gujarat High Court
Dhire @ D.K. @ D.K. Sheth Amrutlal Karia vs State Of Gujarat on 4 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/7036/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 7036 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
DHIRE @ D.K. @ D.K. SHETH AMRUTLAL KARIA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JAGDHISH SATAPARA(5524) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR MANAN MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 04/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1) RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of
the respondent - State of Gujarat.
2) Heard learned Advocate Mr. Jagdish Satapara, for the petitioner
and learned APP for the respondent - State of Gujarat. By way of
present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C"), the
petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR being C.R.
No.11203004250201 of 2025 registered at 'C' Division Junagadh
Police Station, Junagadh, for the offences under Sections 3(1)(i),
3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and
Organized Crime Act, 2015 and other consequential proceedings
arising therefrom.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/7036/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
3) The case of the prosecution is that accused Nos. 1 to 8 in collusion
and connivance with each other and with a common intention,
formed an organized crime syndicate under the leadership of
Accused No. 1 (the present petitioner). They are alleged to have
incited one another and committed serious offences, including
murder, attempt to murder, robbery, offences under the Arms
Act, causing grievous injuries, and large-scale trafficking of Indian-
made foreign liquor in violation of the Prohibition Act. These
offences were allegedly committed over the past ten years across
various districts, including Junagadh, Bhavnagar, Ahmedabad,
Rajkot Rural, Jamnagar, Devbhumi Dwarka, Morbi, and
Gandhinagar. Further, it is alleged that the accused committed
economic offences by earning substantial financial gains through
the instigation and facilitation of the aforementioned crimes.
Accused No. 9 is alleged to have supported and abetted the illegal
activities by managing the financial transactions of the illegal
liquor trade, despite being aware that his father who is accused
No. 1 and the leader of the syndicate, was absconding in
connection with the said offences. Accused No. 9 (son of the
petitioner) is further alleged to have actively participated in the
continuation of the illegal liquor business by maintaining financial
records, encouraging others to engage in the illicit trade, and
knowingly assisting the organized crime syndicate led by his
father. He is accused of providing all necessary facilities to sustain
the unlawful operations of the gang and contributing to the
perpetuation of its criminal activities.
4) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner has been falsely roped in the offence and he is a
reputed builder in Junagadh District. He has also submitted that
due to political rivalry, he has been falsely impleaded in the
alleged offence. When the petitioner was detained in judicial
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/7036/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
custody, he has levelled allegations against Superintendent of
Police and filed a complaint being Criminal Inquiry Case
No.186/2024 before Magistrate Court, wherein, statement of the
petitioner has been recorded by the Court. Keeping the said
grudge, complaint has been filed against the petitioner. He has
further submitted that, the petitioner has been arraigned as an
accused merely based on the statement of co-accused; that in a
complaint, it is shown that 57 offences have been registered and
out of them, the petitioner has been acquitted from 19 offences.
However, the police has not considered the same and arraigned as
an accused only with an oblique motive. Alleged offences are
registered between 2019 to 2024, at that time, the petitioner was
behind bar for more than 2 years and 3 months. It is submitted
that there is no iota of evidence which suggests the involvement
of the petitioner in GUJCTOC, which came into force w.e.f.
01.12.2019.
(4.1) Further, to bolster his argument, he has relied on the
decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of State
of Maharashtra vs. Shiva @ Shivaji Ramaji Sonawane reported in
(2015) 14 SCC 272 and submitted that, before promulgation,
whatever offences registered against the petitioner are required
to be discarded and cannot be considered as part of complaint as
alleged offences were registered prior to the Act came into force.
(4.2) It is further submitted that, driver of the petitioner and
his son are also falsely implicated in the offence. The complaint
does not fulfill the basic requirement of continuing illegal activities
and syndicate crime. The petitioner is not running any syndicate for
any illegal activity. The petitioner has never caught from the spot,
however, merely based on the statement of the co-accused, he was
arrested. The complainant has acted malafide with an oblique
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/7036/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
motive. Hence, he has requested to allow the present petition and
quash and set aside the impugned FIR as impugned complaint is
nothing but abuse of process of law.
Except above, no other submissions have been made by the
learned Advocate for the petitioner.
5) Learned APP for respondent - State of Gujarat has vehemently
opposed the present petition and submitted that the petitioner is
operating a syndicate and has chequered history of criminal
antecedents. Total 58 offences have been registered against him.
Despite being detained in jail, he continued running the syndicate
through his son, driver, and other co-accused. It was further
submitted that the petitioner is an absconder, and a warrant
under Section 72 of the BNSS has been issued against him. The
petitioner is not only facing charges under the Prohibition Act, but
is also accused of forgery, including forging a passport. Thus, a
prima facie case is made out against the petitioner, as he
continues to engage in illegal activities. The investigating agency
has collected sufficient material to invoke the provisions of the
GUJCTOC Act. For establishing a syndicate, individual
chargesheets are not mandatory; nevertheless, individual
chargesheets have been filed against the petitioner.
6) Prosecution witnesses have supported the case, and their
statements have been recorded before the learned Magistrate.
Considering the organized nature of the syndicate and the facts of
the case, if the petitioner is released on bail, there is a strong
possibility that he may tamper with the evidence. Moreover,
within 15 days of his release from jail, the petitioner was involved
in the sale of liquor worth Rs.2.67 crore. The said amount was
transferred through private Angadiya channels, and during the
investigation, prima facie evidence was collected indicating that
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/7036/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
over Rs.11 crore was transferred by the petitioner using Angadiyas
services, and that he managed the syndicate through illegal
means, including the use of courier firms. Further, voice
spectrography tests and other materials have also been collected.
The petitioner is allegedly operating syndicates in Himmatnagar,
Porbandar, and other districts, and remains actively involved in
illegal activities. Some of the co-accused are absconding, and
warrants under Section 72 of the BNSS have been issued against
them as well.
7) I have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments canvassed
by learned advocate appearing for the respective parties.
8) It would be appropriate to refer to the provisions of GUJCTOC
Act, which are as under:
(ii) 2(1)(c) "continuing unlawful activity" means an activity
prohibited by law for the time being in force, which is a
cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for a term
of three years or more, undertaken either singly or jointly,
as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on
behalf of such syndicate in respect of which more than
one charge-sheets have been filed before a competent
court within the preceding period of ten years and that court
has taken cognizance of such offence;
(iii) The ingredients of a 'continuing unlawful activity' are as follows:
a. The activity must be prohibited by law for the time being in
force;
b. The activity must be a cognizable act punishable with
imprisonment of three years or more;
c. The activity may be undertaken either singly or jointly as a
member of an organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such a
syndicate;
d. More than one charge-sheet should have been filed in respect of
the activity before a competent court within the preceeding
period of ten years; and
e. The court should have taken cognizance of the offence.
(iv) 2(1)(e) "organised crime" means any continuing unlawful
activity and terrorist act including extortion, land
grabbing, contract killing, economic offences, cyber
crimes having severe consequences, running large scale
gambling rackets, human trafficking racket for
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/7036/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
Prostitution or ransom by an individual, singly or
jointly, either as a member of an organised crime
syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate, by use of
violence or threat of violence or intimidation or
coercion or other unlawful means;
(v) The ingredients of 'organized crime' are as under:
a. The existence of a continuing unlawful activity;
b. Engagement in the above activity by an individual;
c. The individual may be acting singly or jointly either as a member
of an organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such a syndicate;
d. The use of violence or its threat or intimidation or coercion or
other unlawful means; and
e. The object being to gain pecuniary benefits or undue economic
or other advantage either for the person undertaking the activity
or any other person or for promoting insurgency.
(vi) 2(1)(f) "organised crime syndicate" means a group of
two or more persons who, acting either singly or
collectively, as a syndicate or gang indulging in
activities of organised crime;
(vii) Thus, the elements of the definition of 'organized crime syndicate'
are as follows:
a. A group of two or more persons;
b. Who act singly or collectively, as a syndicate or gang; and
c. Indulge in activities of organized crime.
9) Further, it is appropriate to refer to the provisions of the
GUJCTOC Act, which read as follows:-
3. (1) Whoever commits an offence of organised crime shall,
--
(i) if such offence has resulted in the death of any person, be
punishable with death or imprisonment for life and shall
also be liable to a fine, subject to a minimum fine of rupees
one lakh;
(ii) in any other case, be punishable with imprisonment for a
term which shall not be less than five years but which may
extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to a
fine, subject to a minimum fine of rupees five lakhs.
(2) Whoever conspires or attempts to commit or advocates,
abets or knowingly facilitates the commission of an
organised crime or any act preparatory to organised crime,
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which
shall be not less than five years but which may extend to
imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to a fine,
subject to a minimum fine of rupees five lakhs.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/7036/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
(5) Whoever holds any property derived or obtained from
commission of an organised crime or which has been
acquired through the organised crime syndicate funds
shall be punishable with a term which shall not be less
than three years but which may extend to imprisonment
for life and shall also be liable to fine, subject to a
minimum fine of rupees two lakhs."
10) From the record, it appears that accused Nos. 1 to 8, in
furtherance of their common intention, formed an organized
crime syndicate led by the present petitioner. In coordination with
and by inciting each other, over the past ten years, they have been
involved in serious criminal activities across various districts
including Junagadh, Bhavnagar, Ahmedabad, Rajkot Rural,
Jamnagar, Devbhumi Dwarka, Morbi, and Gandhinagar. These
activities include offences such as murder, attempt to murder,
robbery, offences under the Arms Act, causing injuries, and
violations under the Prohibition Act.
11) The members of the gang, with the intent of securing financial
gain, tampered with engine and chassis numbers of trucks and
other vehicles used for the illegal import of Indian-made foreign
liquor from the States of Haryana, Rajasthan, and Punjab. They
also fabricated transport and GST bills to facilitate these
operations. The gang was systematically formed and operated
with the objective of continuing these illegal activities for
personal financial benefit. The present petitioner is alleged to
have arranged for the illegal supply of liquor and managed the
financial transactions related to the liquor business through his
son, thereby continuously engaging in and sustaining the said
illegal activities The organized gang committed economic crimes
by illegally obtaining Indian-made foreign liquor. The petitioner's
son abetted this crime by facilitating the illegal English liquor
business and continuing the financial transactions related to it.
Despite knowing that his father, the main accused No. 1 in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/7036/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
gang, was absconding in connection with these offences, he took
over and operated the financial aspects of his father's illegal
liquor business. Furthermore, he abetted other persons involved
in the liquor business and actively participated in the criminal
organized gang led by his father.
12) Nonetheless, during April 2025, the petitioner had a turnover of
Rs.92,10,150/- through various Angadiya firms. The statement of
accounts from these firms was also obtained during the
investigation. The statement of the petitioner's employee was
recorded, revealing how the petitioner managed and transferred
money through private channels and Angadiya networks. It was
further found that an amount of Rs.50 lakhs was involved in a
benami transaction through one Angadiya firm based in
Himmatnagar. Additionally, between 09.05.2025 and 04.06.2025,
financial transactions amounting to Rs.2,40,67,650/- took place in
the names of co-accused Dhiren Karia and Kishanbhai. In this
regard, sufficient material has been collected. It has also been
revealed that the petitioner was involved in such illegal activities
using WhatsApp, Telegram, and other private communication
channels, including voice messages under fictitious names such as
DM, DM Uncle, Tinubha Gondal, Adabhai, etc. Through these false
entities, the petitioner continued to engage in unlawful activities.
Substantial evidence has been gathered indicating that, in
collusion with other co-accused, the petitioner operated dummy
SIM cards to run the syndicate. Hence, during the course of the
investigation, ample material has been collected suggesting the
petitioner's involvement. A prima facie offence under GUJCTOC is
disclosed in the FIR. Therefore, this is not a case where the
petitioner has been falsely implicated.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/7036/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
13) Upon bare perusal of aforesaid provisions, it is clear that, to
invoke the provisions of GUJCTOC Act, prosecution has to show
only that, the petitioner - accused is a member of syndicate or a
gang and individual charge-sheet is not necessary and charge-
sheet or offences against syndicate must have been registered.
14) Further, in the case on hand, present petitioner - accused is
absconding and proceeding under Sections 72 of the BNSS are
initiated and as per the scheme of GUJCTOC Act, there is a
provision of bail even if we keep it aside even though as non-
bailable warrant then proceedings under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C
are initiated and present petitioner has continuously remained
absconding and not joined the investigation. Prima facie, it
appears that petitioner is involved in offence and as discussed
above, to invoke the provision of GUJCTOC Act, more than one
charge-sheet is not required to be filed against an individual but
against the syndicate and it reveals from the allegation and
investigation papers, it clearly emerges that present petitioner -
accused is the member of crime syndicate and under his
command, other co-accused are also involved in the offence.
15) So far allegation of malafide is concerned, no specific averments
or grounds raised or material available on record in the petition
and petitioner also failed to show malafide on the part of the
authority. Even under Section 20(1) of the GUJCTOC Act, the
offences under Section 3 are governed by presumptions and until
and unless presumption is rebutted or contrary proved, then
presumption is not that the accused had committed such offence
and under Section 21(2), in prosecution of offence punishable
under Section 3(2), if it is proved that the accused has rendered
any financial assistance to a person having knowledge that such
person is accused of or reasonable suspect of an offence of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/7036/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
organized crime syndicate then presumption is also applicable
under Section 3 of the GUJCTOC Act. Considering the aforesaid
fact, no case is made out to quash and set aside the proceedings.
16) In the present case, investigation is going on and after
promulgation of the GUJCTOC Act, the offence is registered
and more than one charge-sheet has been filed within a
period of 10 years. Hence, merely because petitioner is
acquitted in 19 cases is not a ground to consider the present
petition. Learned advocate for the petitioner has mainly
relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of State of Maharashtra vs. Shiva @ Shivaji Ramaji
Sonawane reported in (2015)14 SCC 272 as well as in the
case of State of Gujarat vs. Sandip Omprakash Gupta
reported in 2022 SCC OnLine (SC) 1727 and submitted that
the provision of Section 3(1)(i) & (ii) of the GUJCTOC Act is
not applicable to the present petitioner. It is needless to say
that the allegation against the present petitioner is that he is
the leader of the organized crime syndicate and he is running
the syndicate and he is a leader. More than one charge-sheet
within 10 years has been filed in the preceding years after
promulgation of the GUJCTOC Act to show and to invoke the
provisions of the GUJCTOC Act and prosecution has to only
show that the accused is member of crime syndicate and
charge-sheet against individual is member is not only a sine
qua non against the syndicate. Herein, accused is the member
and leader of the syndicate against whom after promulgation
of the GUJCTOC Act also, offences are registered. So far as
decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shiva @
Shivaji Ramaji Sonawane (Supra) and Sandip Omprakash
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/7036/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
Gupta (Supra) are concerned, keeping in mind the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Zakir
Abdul Mirajkar vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
reported in 2022 SCC OnLine 1092 and Kavitha Lankesh vs.
State of Karnataka and Others reported in (2022) 12 SCC
753 (3 Judges' Bench), considering the peculiar facts of the
case, authorities relied on by the learned advocate for the
petitioner would not be helpful.
17) Learned advocate for the petitioner has further argued
about the malafide and relied on the application made by the
present petitioner to the Chief Minister and at the time when
one co-accused were in custody, one PSI during interrogation
forced him to withdraw the complaint lodged against the
Range IG and his administrator as regards corruption on
29.10.2023. After recording the statement, the learned
Magistrate has registered the said matter as Criminal Enquiry
No.186/2024 and learned Magistrate has seized to inquire
about the allegation of corruption. Hence, merely because
there is allegation of malafide, in absence of any material, is
not sufficient rather to show the involvement of the present
petitioner and he is the member of syndicate and running the
syndicate and sufficient ample material is collected as
discussed herein earlier part of the order. Hence, argument
canvassed by the learned advocate for the petitioner as
regards malafide is also not acceptable.
18) The investigation is at a nascent stage, and as per the settled law,
the Court should not thwart or interfere with the investigation
process prematurely. The Court must exercise extreme caution
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/7036/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
and restraint while considering any intervention at this stage.
Unless and until no cognizable offence is disclosed, the Court
cannot exercise its powers to stop the investigation. It is not open
to the Court to embark upon an inquiry into the truth or falsity of
the allegations made in the FIR at this stage; such issues are to be
examined only after the investigation is concluded. In this regard,
reference may be made to the decision in King Emperor vs.
Khwaja Nazir Ahmad, reported in 1994 SCC OnLine PC 29.
19) It is also apposite to refer to the decision in the case of Neeharika
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharshtra reported in
2021 SCC Online SC 315 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
observed as under:
"iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with
circumspection, in the 'rarest of rare cases'. (The rarest of rare cases
standard in its petition for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be
confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context of the
death penalty, as explained previously by this Court);
2) v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is
sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability
or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the
FIR/complaint;
3) vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial
stage;
4) vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a
rarity than an ordinary rule;"
It is also appropriate to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of State v. M. Maridoss reported in
(2023) 4 SCC 338 wherein it is held that quashing of FIR exercising
power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C without giving any
reasonable time or opportunity to the Investigating agency to
investigate into the allegations made in the FIR is not permissible.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/7036/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
20) In wake of aforesaid discussion, prima facie
offence is made out against the petitioner - accused. Even,
present case does not satisfy any of the parameters laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana
vs. Bhajan Lal reported in (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335 warranting
the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC vis-à-
vis the quashing of impugned FIR. Further, the Court will not be
justified in embarking upon any enquiry as to the reliability of
genuineness / otherwise of the allegations made in the
complaint and also that, the extraordinary or inherent powers
do not confer any arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act
according to its whims and caprice.
21) For the foregoing reasons, present petition being
devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. Rule is hereby
discharged.
(22) It is made clear that the observations made
herein are tentative in nature and only for the purpose of
deciding present petition and shall not have any bearing on the
merits of the pending proceedings.
Sd/-
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.)
SUCHIT
