Gujarat High Court
Sona Sagar D/O Krishna Chandra Sagar vs State Of Gujarat on 11 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/27587/2017 ORDER DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 27587 of 2017
==========================================================
SONA SAGAR D/O KRISHNA CHANDRA SAGAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
PIYUSHKUMAR K BASERI(7933) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED THRU CONCERNED POLICE STATION for the
Respondent(s) No. 2
MR CHINTAN DAVE, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 11/08/2025
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.II - 3186 of 2017 registered with Chandkheda
Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 279 of
the IPC, u/s 184, 177, 134(b) of the MV Act as well as all other
consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua
the petitioner herein.
2. Seeking quashment of the FIR, Learned advocate for the
petitioner would submit that the petitioner was not driving the
car and his driver was driving the car. He would further
submit that the complainant has lodged the FIR keeping past
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/27587/2017 ORDER DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
grudge and animosity with the petitioner. He would further
submit that due to the grudge and animosity, the petitioner
was attacked by one Vyomesh Solanki, Chairman of the
Society where the petitioner is residing and the petitioner has
received injury for which, she has taken treatment at Zydus
Hospital, Ahmedabad. He would further submit that the
impugned FIR is a counterblast to the FIR lodged by the
petitioner against the complainant. Upon such submission, he
prays to allow this petition by quashing and setting aside the
impugned FIR.
3. Though served, none remained present for the private
respondent.
4. Learned APP having placed on record report of the PSI,
Chandkheda Police Station would submit that the petitioner is
not cooperating with the police for carrying out investigation
smoothly. He would further submit that one eye witness has
deposited that the petitioner's car dashed with the complainant
and thereby, the complainant received injuries. He would
further submit that the eye witness also deposed that the car
of the petitioner was driven rashly and negligently. He would
further submit that since the petitioner has not cooperated
with the investigation, this Court vide order dated 25.7.2019
directed the petitioner to cooperate with the investigation.
Upon above submissions, learned APP would submit that since
the conduct of the petitioner is not good since the inception
and as per the deposition of the eye witness, the car of the
petitioner was driven rashly and negligently and since draft
charge sheet is filed, this Court may not exercise inherent
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/27587/2017 ORDER DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
power u/s 482 of the Code to quash the FIR at this juncture.
Upon such submission, learned APP prays to dismiss the
petition.
5. Having heard learned advocates for the parties, what
appears that petitioner is not cooperating with the police for
carrying out investigation smoothly. Further, one eye witness
has deposited that the petitioner's car dashed with the
complainant and thereby, the complainant received injuries.
The eye witness also deposed that the car of the petitioner was
driven rashly and negligently. What further appears that
since the petitioner has not cooperated with the investigation,
this Court vide order dated 25.7.2019 directed the petitioner
to cooperate with the investigation. Thus, it appears that the
conduct of the petitioner is not good since the inception and as
per the deposition of the eye witness, the car of the petitioner
was driven rashly and negligently.
6. In Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Ltd. v/ s.
State of Uttar Pradesh [2020 SCC Online SC 958], the
Hon'ble Apex Court has held that exercise of power under
section 482 of the Code should be exercised sparingly and
cannot be used to thwart the investigation. The relevant para
reads as under :-
"41. It is needless to point out that ever since the
decision of the Privy Council in King Emperor v.
Khwaja Nazir Ahmed AIR 1945 PC 18, the law is well
settled that Courts would not thwart any
investigation. It is only in cases where no cognizable
offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first
information report that the Court will not permit an
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/27587/2017 ORDER DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
investigation to go on. As cautioned by this Court in
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC
335, the power of quashing should be exercised very
sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the
rarest of rare cases. While examining a complaint, the
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 or in the complaint. In S.M. Datta v. State of
Gujarat (2001) 7 SCC 659 this Court again cautioned
that criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at
the initial stage. Quashing of a complaint should
rather be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary
rule. In S.M. Datta (supra), this Court held that if a
perusal of the first information report leads to
disclosure of an offence even broadly, law courts are
barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police,
since the two organs of the State operate in two
specific spheres of activities and one ought not to
tread over the other sphere."
7. In Central Bureau Of Investigation Versus Aryan Singh
Etc., AIR 2023 SC 1987, the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 4 and
5 held and observed as under:-
"4. Having gone through the impugned common
judgment and order passed by the High Court
quashing the criminal proceedings and discharging
the accused, we are of the opinion that the High
Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction in quashing the
entire criminal proceedings in exercise of the limited
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or in exercise
of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
4.1 From the impugned common judgment and
order passed by the High Court, it appears that
the High Court has dealt with the proceedings
before it, as if, the High Court was conducting a
mini trial and/or the High Court was
considering the applications against the
judgment and order passed by the learned Trial
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/27587/2017 ORDER DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
Court on conclusion of trial. As per the cardinal
principle of law, at the stage of discharge
and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings,
while exercising the powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to conduct the
mini trial. The High Court in the common
impugned judgment and order has observed
that the charges against the accused are not
proved. This is not the stage where the
prosecution / investigating agency is/are
required to prove the charges. The charges are
required to be proved during the trial on the
basis of the evidence led by the prosecution /
investigating agency. Therefore, the High Court
has materially erred in going in detail in the
allegations and the material collected during
the course of the investigation against the
accused, at this stage. At the stage of discharge
and/or while exercising the powers under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court has a very
limited jurisdiction and is required to consider
"whether any sufficient material is available to
proceed further against the accused for which
the accused is required to be tried or not".
4.2 One another reason pointed by the High
Court is that the initiation of the criminal
proceedings / proceedings is malicious. At this
stage, it is required to be noted that the
investigation was handed over to the CBI
pursuant to the directions issued by the High
Court. That thereafter, on conclusion of the
investigation, the accused persons have been
chargesheeted. Therefore, the High Court has
erred in observing at this stage that the
initiation of the criminal proceedings /
proceedings is malicious. Whether the criminal
proceedings was/were malicious or not, is not
required to be considered at this stage. The
same is required to be considered at the
conclusion of the trial. In any case, at this
stage, what is required to be considered is a
prima facie case and the material collected
during the course of the investigation, which
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/27587/2017 ORDER DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
warranted the accused to be tried.
5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated
above, when the High Court has exceeded in its
jurisdiction in quashing the entire criminal
proceedings and applying the law laid down by this
Court in catena of decisions on exercise of the
powers at the stage of discharge and/or quashing the
criminal proceedings, the impugned common
judgment and order passed by the High Court
quashing the criminal proceedings against the
accused is unsustainable and the same deserves to
be quashed and set aside.
5.1 In view of the above and for the reasons stated
above, present appeals succeed. The impugned
common judgment and order passed by the High
Court quashing and setting aside the criminal
proceedings against the accused Aryan Singh and
Gautam Cheema is/are quashed and set aside. The
accused to face the trial for which they are
chargesheeted. However, it is observed that all the
contentions and defences, which are available to the
respective parties are kept open, to be considered by
the learned Trial Court during the trial. Considering
the fact that the allegations in the FIR relates back to
the year 2014 and as more than eight years have
passed, we direct the learned Trial Court to conclude
the trial at the earliest, but not later than 12 months
from the date of the receipt of the present order. CBI
to produce the present order before the concerned
Magistrate at the earliest. All concerned are directed
to cooperate with the learned Trial Court in
concluding the trial within the time prescribed
mentioned hereinabove. Present appeals are allowed
accordingly."
8. The court is expected to exercise inherent jurisdiction
under section 482 of the code to quash criminal proceedings /
FIR at threshold sparingly. Simultaneously, the High Court
under section 482 of the Code is prevented from holding mini
trial. What is required to see as to whether sufficient material
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/27587/2017 ORDER DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
is available to quash the FIR and to exercise inherent
jurisdiction.
9. In the aforesaid circumstances, while referring to the
judgment in 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 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)."
10. In the background of above, the FIR since prima facie
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/27587/2017 ORDER DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
established commission of cognizable offence against the
petitioner and the face of the FIR indicates that since rash
and negligent driving of the car of the petitioner, the
complainant received injuries. Hence, this petition cannot be
entertained at this stage.
11. In the result, present petition fails and stands dismissed.
Notice discharged. Interim relief granted earlier stands
vacated.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SHEKHAR P. BARVE
