Gujarat High Court
Navinchandra Nanubhai Maratha vs State Of Gujarat on 7 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17353/2015 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 17353 of 2015
==========================================================
NAVINCHANDRA NANUBHAI MARATHA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VICKY B MEHTA(5422) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR RAMNANDAN SINGH(1126) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR CHINTAN DAVE, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 07/08/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"),
the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside FIR
being C.R.No.I-56 of 2015 registered with DCB Police Station,
Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under Sections 406,
420, 465, 466, 471 and 120B of Indian Penal Code and section
65 and 66(C)(D) of Information Technology Act as well as all
other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR
qua the petitioner herein.
2. Learned advocate Mr.Vicky Mehta for the petitioner
differentiating role of present petitioner from main accused by
reading FIR would submit that alleged offence is committed by
main accused Homi Maratha. He has impersonated himself as
advocate to the complainant and under pretext of filing service
petition in the High Court of Gujarat has siphoned and swindle
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17353/2015 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
Rs.3 lakhs and not only that he has also forged order passed in
Special Civil Application No.10745 of 2011 and send it by email
to the complainant. Learned advocate Mr.Mehta submitted that
in this factual aspects, the petitioner who is father of main
accused Homi Maratha is nowhere involved. He would submit
that perusing FIR no specific allegations are levelled against the
petitioner that he has committed offence under sections
Sections 406, 420, 465, 466, 471 and 120B of Indian Penal Code
and section 65 and 66(C,D) of Information Technology Act. He
would further submit that it is alleged in the complaint that
petitioner has forged order of High Court of Gujarat and send it
to the complainant through email. In aforesaid circumstances,
learned advocate Mr.Mehta submitted that the petitioner who is
father of main accused Homi Maratha having no role to play in
commission of offence may not be allowed to face trial.
2.1. Making above submissions, learned advocate Mr.Mehta
submitted to allow the petition.
3. Learned advocate Mr.Singh for private respondent as well
as learned APP for respondent State argued that main accused
and present petitioner were running Maratha Law Chambers
opposite Ahmedabad Stock Exchange, Ambawadi and they were
impersonating themselves as advocate though they were not
authorized by Bar Council of Gujarat to practice as advocate. It
is submitted that investigation of offence is complete and charge-
sheet is filed against main accused Homi Maratha.
3.1. Learned APP submits that during investigation it was
found that fake order of High Court of Gujarat was send to the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17353/2015 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
complainant through email ID to the petitioner. It prima facie
indicates that petitioner is in hand in glove with main accused
Homi Maratha by putting false facts, obtained Rs.3 lakhs from
complainant and then without filing Special Civil Application
before High Court of Gujarat or service petition forwarded forged
order to the complainant after obtaining Rs.3 lakhs.
3.2. Learned APP would further submit that as many as 14
antecedent are registered against the present petitioner in
Dholka Police Station most of them are in regards to commission
of offence under sections 406, 408, 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471
of IPC which shows that the petitioner is possessing guilt mind
since long.
3.3. In aforesaid circumstances, learned advocates for
respondents jointly submitted that the petition may not be
entertained and be dismissed.
4. At the outset, having heard learned advocates for the
parties, let refer relevant portion of FIR which reads as under (it
is in Gujarati, for better understanding it is translated in
English) :-
"The fact of this case is that though the accused persons,
mentioned in the column No. 7, were not having license of
advocates, introduced themselves as advocates. On the
specified date, time and place they collected ₹ 3,00,000/-
for filing a Service Petition before the High Court of Gujarat
and litigating the same. They sent an email containing a
fake order for Spl. C. A. No. 10745/2011. Moreover, they
canvassed themselves as advocates at different places,
enlisted false facts using internet-based phone, and thereby
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17353/2015 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
committed the offenses of cheating and criminal breach of
trust against the complainant and other individuals.
5. The fact itself is found disturbing. The complainant who
was facing problem of not having promoted searched Goolge
website and found Maratha Law Chambers run by the petitioner
and his son. Son of the petitioner talked with complainant and
assured that he will file service petition. Fees of Rs.3 lakhs were
fixed and after obtaining Rs.1.60 lakhs, no further proceedings
were carried out. The fact reveals that complainant who was
serving at Ahmedabad at relevant time was transferred to
Rajasthan. According to FIR, order passed in Special Civil
Application No.10745 of 2011 has been forged and forwarded to
complainant and thereafter, main accused has obtained
remaining amount of Rs.1.40 lakhs. The fact further reveals
that petitioner having become suspicious visited website of High
Court of Gujarat and found that the matter in which order was
passed was filed by Nilaben Bhusara and then entire issue is
unearth. Investigation in the matter reveals that for Maratha
Law Chambers, Homi Maratha and petitioner were forwarding
email to the complainant keeping in assurance and satisfied that
service petition has been filed and some order is also received.
Email ID of the petitioner is equally used. Learned advocate
Mr.Mehta since was confronted with this aspect, he could not
point out that email which was send on 19.08.2013 was not
send from email ID of the petitioner.
6. In aforesaid circumstances, contention raised by the
petitioner can be examined during trial. Needless to state that
this Court at the time of exercising jurisdiction under section
482 of Cr.P.C. would not hold mini trial and would not decide
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17353/2015 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
contention and contentious question. Simultaneously,
truthfulness of FIR also cannot be examined.
7. In MCD v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi, (1983) 1 SCC 1: 1983
SCC (Cri) 115, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that proceedings
can be quashed on the face of the complaint and papers
accompanying the same if no offence is constituted. The Court
cannot add or subtract anything. In para 10, it has been held as
under:-
"10. It is, therefore, manifestly clear that proceedings
against an accused in the initial stages can be quashed
only if, on the face of the complaint or the papers
accompanying the same, no offence is constituted. In
other words, the test is that taking the allegations and
the complaint as they are, without adding or subtracting
anything, if no offence is made out, then the High Court
will be justified in quashing the proceedings in exercise
of its powers under Section 482 of the present Code."
8. Reference can also be made to recent judgment of Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Ajay Malik v. State of Uttarakhand,
2025 SCC OnLine SC 185. The Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated
the position of law for quashing the FIR as under:-
"8. It is well established that a High Court, in exercising
its extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the CrPC,
may issue orders to prevent the abuse of court processes
or to secure the ends of justice. These inherent powers
are neither controlled nor limited by any other statutory
provision. However, given the broad and profound nature
of this authority, the High Court must exercise it
sparingly. The conditions for invoking such powers are
embedded within Section 482 of the CrPC itself, allowing
the High Court to act only in cases of clear abuse of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17353/2015 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
process or where intervention is essential to uphold the
ends of justice.
9. It is in this backdrop that this Court, over the course of
several decades, has laid down the principles and
guidelines that High Courts must follow before quashing
criminal proceedings at the threshold, thereby pre-
empting the Prosecution from building its case before the
Trial Court. The grounds for quashing, inter alia,
contemplate the following situations : (i) the criminal
complaint has been filed with mala fides; (ii) the FIR
represents an abuse of the legal process; (iii) no prima
facie offence is made out; (iv) the dispute is civil in nature;
(v.) the complaint contains vague and omnibus
allegations; and (vi) the parties are willing to settle and
compound the dispute amicably (State of Haryana v.
Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335)."
9. In the case of hand, investigation of FIR is complete and
charge-sheet is filed against main accused Homi Maratha. To
reveal role of the petitioner in commission of offence, charge-
sheet is not filed against the petitioner as interim relief is
continued but in facts of the case, the petitioner is found to be
partner in crime with his son at first blush and therefore, FIR at
threshold cannot be said to be abuse of process of law.
10. Resultantly, present petition fails and stand dismissed.
Notice discharged. Interim relief granted earlier stands vacated.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SATISH
