Gujarat High Court
Simon Devinandan S/O Louis Devinandan vs State Of Gujarat on 11 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2951/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 2951 of 2025
==========================================================
SIMON DEVINANDAN S/O LOUIS DEVINANDAN
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
RASHESH A PATEL(8802) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR CHINTAN DAVE, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 11/02/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. This application is filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure (`the Code' for short) for the
following prayers:
"8(A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and set
aside Session Case No.98 of 2018, pending with 16
Additional District and Sessions Court, Jamnagar arising out
of Chargesheet No.199 of 2018 and originating from FIR
No.115/2018 lodged with City B Division Police Station
Jamnagar under section 302, 201 and 120(B) of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 135(1) of Gujarat Police Act qua the
Applicant;
(B) Pending the disposal of this application, this Hon'ble
Court may be pleased to stay Session case No.98 of 2018,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2951/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/02/2025
undefined
pending with 16 Additional District and Sessions Court,
Jamnagar arising out of Chargesheet No.199 of 2018 and
originating from FIR No.115/2018 lodged with City B
Division Police Station Jamnagar under section 302, 201 and
120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135(1) of
Gujarat Police Act qua the Applicant;
(C) xxxx"
2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Patel for the applicant
and learned APP Mr.Dave for respondent-state.
3. Learned advocate Mr.Patel has submitted that the
applicant is falsely implicated in the offence without any
evidence on the day of arrest; that the statements were false
and fabricated and were on the basis of hearsay and there is
no truth in the same; that the entire case is fabricated and
the applicant is falsely implicated in the case; that the
statement dated 15.5.2018 has been fabricated by police; there
is no direct evidence against the applicant. He, therefore,
submitted that in absence of any evidence, the police framed
a false case against the applicant and the Sessions Judge
proceeded to frame the charge against the applicant, which is
required to be quashed and set aside in this application.
4. As against this, learned APP has submitted that
the case is of the year 2018, the chargesheet is filed in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2951/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/02/2025
undefined
year 2018 and when the charge is framed in the year 2024
in the Sessions Case, now this application is filed for
quashing of the proceedings against the applicant after a
delay of almost six years. He submitted that during the
investigation, the police found the involvement of the
applicant in the offence as a conspirator in the said offence
and therefore the applicant's name was added in the
chargesheet. Further, whatever submissions are made in this
application are a matter of defence, which have to be proved
by the applicant at the time of trial and for that, the full-
fledged trial is required. He, therefore, submitted that this
application may not be entertained at this stage and the trial
may be permitted to be proceeded.
5. I have heard the learned advocates for the parties
and perused the material placed on record.
6. The FIR is filed for the provisions of Sections 201,
120(B) and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135(1)
of Gujarat Police Act in the year 2018, the chargesheet is
also filed in the year 2018. The charge is framed on
13.9.2024 and this petition is filed on 21.12.2024 i.e. after a
period of about six years from the filing of the chargesheet.
When the applicant is aggrieved of adding of his name in
the chargesheet as accused, he could have challenged the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2951/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/02/2025
undefined
same or taken recourse of any appropriate remedy available
under the law at the relevant point of time, but he failed in
doing so and now after the charge is framed by the learned
Sessions Court, this petition is filed, which shows that it is
filed with an intention to cause hindrance with the
proceedings of the trial.
7. As regards the submissions of his false
involvement in the case, from the papers of chargesheet, it is
clear that the applicant was one of the members in the
meeting for hatching the conspiracy for murdering the
deceased. Further, the main accused is still on the run. The
police, after investigating, has found material against the
accused and therefore his name is mentioned in the
chargesheet as one of the conspirator. In a heinous crime
like the one under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the
pleading by the applicant that his name is falsely implicated
in the offence, that too, after a period of delay of almost six
years, and at the stage when the learned Sessions Court has
framed the charge, cannot be considered at this stage in this
application under Section 482 of the Code. The murder was
committed of an advocate in broad day light and such a
serious offence cannot be committed by one person; there are
a group of persons who come together, hatch conspiracy and
then commit the offence. In the present case, Section 120(B)
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2951/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/02/2025
undefined
of the Indian Penal Code is invoked and the applicant is
shown as one of the conspirator in the offence. If the
applicant is aggrieved by the same, he could have challenged
the same well in advance. By not doing so and keeping quiet
all these years and challenging the same at this stage after
the charge is framed by the learned Sessions Court itself
shows that this application is nothing but an attempt to
cause hindrance in the administration of justice and it
amounts to abuse of process of law.
8. It is true that the powers under Section 482 of
the Code are inherent in nature and have to be exercised to
do substantial justice, but, in a case like this, when the
heinous crime of murder is committed and the primary
involvement of the applicant is seen, interference by this
Court at this stage is not proper and the full-fledged trial by
leading evidence is required to bring the truth to the surface.
9. In view of the above discussion and in view of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of in the
case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. V/s State of
Maharashtra reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 315, this
application is not required to be entertained. Accordingly, this
application is dismissed.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2951/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/02/2025
undefined
10. However, considering the conduct of the present
applicant, with a view to set an example by imposing
exemplary cost for such frivolous litigation being filed at the
stage of commencement of trial with a view to cause
hindrance in the proceedings of the trial, the cost of Rs.1 lac
is imposed to be paid by the applicant before the Gujarat
High Court Legal Services Authority within a period of two
weeks from today and produce the receipt before the Registry
of this Court. If such receipt is not produced, the Registry is
at liberty to inform the Court so that the Court can pass
order for further action as such attempt is also to be
considered as an attempt to create hindrance in
administration of justice.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J)
SRILATHA
