Gujarat High Court
Dhruti W/O Jaysukhbhai Ranpariya vs State Of Gujarat on 14 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/2338/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 2338 of 2025
==========================================================
DHRUTI W/O JAYSUKHBHAI RANPARIYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
PRASHANTKUMAR R SHARMA(8591) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS. SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 14/02/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present petition is filed seeking the following
prayers:
"A. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and
set aside Order dated 11.10.2024 passed under Exh.8
in Criminal Case No.3092/2021 annexed at
ANNEXURE P along with Charge Sheet No. 2493 of
2020 dated 11.12.2020 and further to direct the Ld.
Trial Court being 5th Addl. Sr. Civil Jude & ACJM,
Jamnagar to direct the concerned police officers to
further investigate / reinvestigate the offence being
FIR No. 11202008202314 dated 01.11.2020 registered
with Jamnagar Police Station City A Division for the
offence u/s 504 and 506(2) of the IPC with respect to
the new evidentiary documents provided by the
applicant herein at ANNEXURE O
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/2338/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2025
undefined
B. Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of
the present application/petition, this Hon'ble Court may
be pleased to stay the trial proceedings in Criminal
Case No. 3092/2021 tried before the Hon'ble 5th Addl.
Senior Civil Judge and ACJM, Jamnagar
C. Ad-interim relief in terms of Prayer B may be
granted
D. Such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper be granted."
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Prashantkumar R. Sharma
for the petitioner and learned APP, Ms. Shruti Pathak for
the respondent - State.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Sharma for the petitioner has
submitted that pursuant to the earlier order passed by this
Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.17480 of 2023, the
application is preferred under Section 173(8) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, before the trial Court vide Exh.8
in Criminal Case No.3092 of 2021. He has submitted that
the trial Court has not properly considered the application
and has decided the said application in a mechanical manner.
He has further submitted that the trial Court has not
properly considered the fact that the accused is a family
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/2338/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2025
undefined
relative of current Member of Parliament of Jamnagar, who
is a close associate of Mr. Parimal Nathwani (Vice President
of Reliance Industries Limited and also Member of
Parliament). He further submits the fact that the accused is
a family relative of current M.P. of Jamnagar, which is
confirmed from the statement of Mr. Vishal Madam and he
has submitted that the trial Court has failed to appreciate
the fact that the accused person has two brothers viz. Anand
Madam and Jay Madam and all three of them having their
tender contracts with Reliance Industries and same was given
to them upon the recommendation of Mr. Parimal Nathwani.
3.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner has further
submitted that the petitioner had produced various news
articles relating to the Reliance Industries to the Police
Officials and have informed that Mr. Parimal Nathwani is
the mastermind behind the entire offence as the petitioner
was threatened to issue newspaper publication against the
Reliance Industries Pvt. Ltd. He has further submitted that
attackers were sent at the home of the petitioner. He further
submits that considering various judgments of the Hon'ble
Apex Court, the Court can direct re-investigation or de novo
investigation by considering material available on the record,
which is not done by the trial Court. He has submitted that
this Court has ample power to grant re-investigation or
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/2338/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2025
undefined
further investigation. He has relied on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in cases of Anant Thanur Karmuse Vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. rendered in Criminal Appeal
No.13 of 2023 as well as Devendra Nath Singh Vs. State of
Bihar reported in 2022 INSC 1071 and has submitted that
since the Police Officials have repeatedly failed to take any
action against any person named by the complainant,
therefore, further investigation or de novo investigation is
required and in the interest of justice as well as for
considering the aspect of fair trial, he prayed to allow the
present petition.
4. Per contra, learned APP Ms. Shruti Pathak has strongly
opposed the submissions made at the bar on behalf of the
petitioner and has referred to the relevant portion from the
judgment of trial Court and submitted that the trial Court
has dealt with all the aspects in its judgment and the
application which is filed under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C.
is rejected. She has further submitted, by referring to the
earlier order passed by the Coordinate Bench in Criminal
Misc. Application No.17480 of 2023 dated 23/10/23, that on
the same facts as that of the present case, earlier also
petition is filed which was considered by the Coordinate
Bench of this Court and after considering the same, the
Court was not inclined to grant any relief and the petition
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/2338/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2025
undefined
came to be disposed of, however, liberty was granted to the
petitioner to approach the trial Court for further investigation
with necessary material. She submits that considering that
the petitioner is filing one after another litigation before this
Court, which should be considered as abuse of process of law
and the same is required to be dealt with accordingly by
dismissing this petition
5. I have considered the rival submissions made at the
bar. The provisions of Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., reads as
under:
"Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C.:
(8) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude
further investigation in respect of an offence after a
report under sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the
Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the
officer-in-charge of the police station obtains further
evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the
Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such
evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of
sub-sections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in
relation to such report or reports as they apply in
relation to a report forwarded under sub-section (2)."
5.1 It is not in dispute that the petitioner has approached
this Hon'ble Court on earlier occasion by praying for almost
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/2338/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2025
undefined
identical relief as prayed in the present petition and this
Court has given specific observation while considering all the
material available on the record and thereafter, disposed of
the petition by observing that no case is made out for
interference of the Court. The relevant portion for
consideration of the order dated 23.10.2023 passed in
Criminal Misc. Application No.17480 of 2023, para 1, 9 to 15
are reproduced herein-below:
"1. The present petition under Article 226 is filed by the
petitioner praying, interalia, as under:-
"A This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside
the Chargesheet No.2493 of 2020 dated 11.12.2020 and further
direct the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamnagar to
direct the concerned police officers to reinvestigate the entire
case related to FIR No.11202008202314 dated 01.11.2020
registered with Jamnagar Police Station City A Division for the
offense U/S 504 and 506(2) of the IPC or in alternative direct
the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamnagar to direct the
concerned police officers to further investigate the entire case
related to FIR No..11202008202314 dated 01.11.2020 and cc
No.3092/21."
9. The relief prayed for directing the Chief Judicial Magistrate
to order re-investigation cannot be granted in view
of decision of Apex Court in case of Chandra Babu @ Mosess.
State Through Inspector of Police and others, reported in, 2015
(8) SCC 774 in para-21 and 22 as under:-
"21. In the said case, the question arose, whether the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/2338/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2025
undefined
Magistrate can direct for reinvestigation. The Court, while
dealing with the said issue, has ruled that (Vinay Tyagi case,
SCC p.791, para 43):-
"43. At this stage, we may also state another well-settled canon
of the criminal jurisprudence that the superior courts have the
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code or even Article 226
of the Constitution of India to direct "further investigation",
"fresh" or "de novo" and even "reinvestigation". "Fresh", "de
novo" and "reinvestigation" are synonymous expressions and
their result in law would be the same. The superior courts are
even vested with the power of transferring investigation from
one agency to another, provided the ends of justice so demand
such action. Of course, it is also a settled principle that this
power has to be exercised by the superior courts very sparingly
and with great circumspection."
And again: (SCC p. 794, para 51)
"51. ...Whether the Magistrate should direct "further
investigation" or not is again a matter which will depend upon
the facts of a given case. The learned Magistrate or the higher
court of competent jurisdiction would direct "further
investigation" or "reinvestigation" as the case may be, on the
facts of a given case. Where the Magistrate can only direct
further investigation, the courts of higher jurisdiction can direct
further, reinvestigation or even investigation de novo depending
on the facts of a given case. It will be the specific order of the
court that would determine the nature of investigation."
22. We respectfully concur with the said view. As we have
already indicated, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has
basically directed for further investigation. The said part of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/2338/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2025
undefined
order cannot be found fault with, but an eloquent one, he could
not have directed another investigating agency to investigate as
that would not be within the sphere of further investigation
and, in any case, he does not have the jurisdiction to direct
reinvestigation by another agency. Therefore, that part of the
order deserves to be lancinated and accordingly it is directed
that the investigating agency that had investigated shall carry
on the further investigation and such investigation shall be
supervised by the concerned Superintendent of Police. After the
further investigation, the report shall be submitted before the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate who shall deal with the same
in accordance with law. We may hasten to add that we have
not expressed any opinion relating to any of the factual aspects
of the case."
10. The facts of the case revolves around the incident which
took place on 27.09.2020 for which complaint was filed on
01.11.2020 being C.R.No.11202008202314 of 2020 before City 'A"
Division Police Station, Jamnagar. The incident is of the
accused named in the FIR arrived at the residence of the
petitioner when she was present with her sister and accused
banged on the closed door of the house and hurled abuses. Her
statement was recorded on same day. Again on 04.11.2020
statement was recorded especially for CCTV footage. On
04.11.2020 statement of sister of the petitioner was recorded.
She refers to issuance of threats. Statements of two witnesses
who are independent and residents of vicinity were recorded.
The accused was arrested and charge-sheet is filed on
11.12.2020.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/2338/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2025
undefined
11. Learned advocate has prayed before the Court that the
directions be given relegating the petitioner to the police agency
or the trial Court. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner
is unable to make out a ground for any interference at this
stage as it is clearly coming out on record that the petitioner
has not raised any of these contentions either before the Court
of appropriate jurisdiction where the charge-sheet has already
been filed nor has he placed anything on record to indicate that
the petitioner has brought this issue before the concerned
Investigating Agency. The petition is entirely aimed at witch-
hunting a person, according to the petitioner, who is responsible
for the accused person coming to the door of the petitioner and
issuing threats. However, it is submitted that who is behind
this has not been investigated. The charge-sheet filed indicates
that it was the accused himself who had approached the
residence of the petitioner and had issued the threats and once
the statements of witnesses have been recorded, there does not
appear anything on record that any other person is behind the
accused.
12. The Court has also perused the statement of witnesses in
the form of complainant herself, her sister as well as two
independent witnesses, who are the neighbours. From their
evidence also, nothing is coming out as to the petitioner has
made any allegations about any person being behind the
accused who is now charge-sheeted.
13. The trial Court is not powerless when it comes to
circumstance to order further investigation if the material comes
on record of the trial Court. In given facts, the trial Court may
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/2338/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2025
undefined
do so even after filing of the 'final report'. In the instant case,
there is nothing on record that the petitioner has indicated any
fact which has remained un-investigated except for the fact that
which article published by the petitioner has irked the accused
and relation of the accused with the member of Parliament and
other influential persons. This in itself will not be sufficient to
order re-investigation of the entire case. Various pronouncements
of the Apex Court do refer to the powers of the constitutional
Court to order 're-investigation' to instill the confidence in the
investigation. However, such powers are also to be used with
circumspection where the offense involved is of serious nature.
The facts of the present case do not go beyond banging on the
door of the residence of the petitioner and then hurling abuses.
These facts will definitely not required the Court to interfere.
14. However, it is specifically observed at the request of learned
advocate that it is still open for the petitioner to approach the
Court concerned or the investigating agency with any fact which
according to the petitioner is relevant which shall be dealt with
by the Court concerned and the investigating agency in
accordance with law. If need be petitioner may even draw
attention of the superior police officer in this regard.
15. In view of the aforesaid, no case is made out for
interference at this stage. Hence, the petition stands disposed
of."
5.2 In view of the above mentioned background, the trial
Court has dealt with the material available on the record
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/2338/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2025
undefined
and while disposing the Criminal Misc. Application by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court, the liberty came to be
granted to approach the trial Court by filing appropriate
proceedings for further investigation. The trial Court dealt
with the contentions raised at the bar and has specifically
found in paragraph 5 by giving detailed discussion about
the submissions made at the bar. The Court has
specifically found that the FIR has been lodged against
the accused - Dharmin Madam by the petitioner under
Sections 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code. It is
alleged in the FIR that the accused person on 27.09.2020,
at about 8 p.m., came to the house of the petitioner and
knocked the door of the house and when, he was asked
who is he?, he answered, Dharmin Madam and then, he
abused and threatened the petitioner to stop publishing
the articles in newspaper, otherwise, he will kill the
father-in-law of the petitioner. The Court has also
considered the aspect that the incident has taken place on
27.09.2020 and the FIR is lodged on 01.11.2020. It is also
stated by the petitioner before the trial Court that the
Police did not registered the FIR and the entire FIR is
not registered as per the version given by the petitioner
and the FIR is lodged with modified version. However, the
Court has found that if that is the situation, then, why
the complainant who is a journalist signed the said FIR.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/2338/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2025
undefined
The Court has also observed that the allegations with
regard to the publication of news articles which are the
same news articles, which are considered by this Hon'ble
Court while deciding the earlier application i.e. Criminal
Misc. Application No.17480 of 2023. The Court has
considered that no new material or evidence has been
produced. The Court has considered all these aspects as
well as the conduct of the petitioner, whereby, though the
FIR is read by the petitioner and thereafter signed, she
has not raised any objection at that point of time.
5.3 Moreover, considering the fact that this Court has
already decided all the contentions raised in the present
petition vide order dated 23.10.2023 passed in Criminal Misc.
Application No.17480 of 2023 and thereafter, there is no
material available before the trial Court nor before this
Court. Therefore, in absence of such material, merely
petitioner is repeatedly approaching this Court by challenging
the same thing, which is to be considered as abuse of
process of law as the judicial time is wasted in deciding such
litigation without any supporting material. In any case, there
is no quarrel about the ratio of the judgments relied upon by
the petitioner but the facts of each case are to be decided on
its own merits and considering the scope of Section 173(8) of
the Cr.P.C., this Court is of the view that neither the trial
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/2338/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2025
undefined
Court has committed any error nor the prayers sought in the
present petition can be granted, as no case is made out on
merits of the matter.
5.4 This Court is of the opinion that the person who is
filing repeated petition for the same subject matter, with
some minor modification, is required to be saddled with
heavy cost, however, this Court refrains from doing so by
observing that the petitioner should be more cautious in
future while filing such repeated petitions.
6. In view of the foregoing reasons, the present petition
lacks merit as no case is made out to exercise powers
conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and
the petition is required to be dismissed.
7. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J)
*S. Barot*
