Gujarat High Court
Sanjaybhai Dhirajlal Dave vs State Of Gujarat on 1 July, 2025
Author: Nirzar S. Desai
Bench: Nirzar S. Desai
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/3192/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO.3192 of 2022
=========================================
SANJAYBHAI DHIRAJLAL DAVE
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=========================================
Appearance :
MR RUTVIJ M BHATT for the Applicant.
MR. KULDEEP D VAIDYA for the Respondent Nos.2 to 13.
MR RONAK B. RAVAL, APP for the Respondent No.1.
=========================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 01/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor and
learned advocate Mr. Kuldeep Vaidya waive service of rule on
behalf of respondent No.1 and respondent Nos.2 to 13 respectively.
With the consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal today itself.
2. By way of this petition, the applicant has challenged
order dated 4.3.2020 passed below Exh.1 in Sessions Case No.14 of
2020 by learned Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar (hereinafter referred to
as 'the learned Trial Court') by which learned Trial Court has
allowed the application and ordered to commit Criminal Case
No.5045 of 2019 and further ordered to try Criminal Case No.5045
of 2019 and Sessions Case No.14 of 2020 together.
3. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as
under :-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/3192/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
3.1 It is the case of the present applicant that applicant is
the original complainant of Sessions Case No.14 of 2020 which was
culminated from FIR dated 27.2.2019 being I C.R. No.22 of 2019
filed with Shihor Police Station for the offences punishable under
Sections 364A, 365, 323, 506 (2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
The sum and substance of the said FIR filed by the applicant was
that the applicant collected a total sum of Rs.1,58,00,000/- from
around 35 to 40 candidates with a false promise to give them job.
However, as he could not fulfill the promise and provide the job to
those persons, he repaid a sum of Rs.1,58,00,000/- to accused No.1
of the said FIR and despite that, further amount of Rs.92,00,000/-
was demanded and, therefore, the applicant even repaid the sum of
Rs.92,00,000/- by selling out his properties and thereby, total
amount of Rs.2,50,00,000/- was repaid to the accused persons and
despite that, accused of the said FIR with an intention to extort
more money, as the complainant was serving at Amreli, by hatching
a pre-planned conspiracy, tried to kidnap him and by keeping him
in illegal confinement, asked for extortion and beaten him up.
3.2 Another FIR bearing I C.R. No.41 of 2019 was filed by
one Kaushik Manubhai Joshi with Ghogha Road Police Station, Dist.
Bhavnagar on 12.3.2019 for the offence punishable under Sections
406, 420, 465, 468, 471, 473, 476, 120-B and 114 of the Indian
Penal Code alleging that he has collected a total sum of
Rs.5,27,20,000/- from various persons upon a false promise that he
will provide them Government job as he knows higher Government
Officers and Secretaries of the Government. In pursuance of the
said FIR, Criminal Case No.5045 of 2019 was registered.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/3192/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
3.3 Both the above stated FIRs were registered in February
and March, 2019. FIR filed by applicant was registered prior in
point of time i.e. on 27.2.2019 and subsequent FIR was registered
on 12.3.2019.
3.4 The respondent Nos.2 to 13 herein - accused of
Sessions Case No.14 of 2020 submitted an application to the
learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar with a
prayer to conduct joint trial of Sessions Case No.14 of 2020 and
Criminal Case No.5045 of 2019.
3.5 The learned Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar vide impugned
order dated 4.3.2020 was pleased to allow the said application and
directed to try both the cases together and called for papers of
Criminal Case No.5045 of 2019.
3.6 It is this order which is under challenge in the present
petition.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Rutvij M. Bhatt appearing for the
applicant submitted that applicant's case is different as
complainant has compared it with the other FIR and the FIR of the
applicant revolves around the offence of abduction and extortion
whereas the other FIR for which Criminal Case No.5045 of 2019
was filed, was in respect of cheating and collection of more than
Rs.5 Crores. Therefore, the contents of both the FIRs are
absolutely different and, therefore, the same could not have been
treated as cross cases and, therefore, both the aforesaid cases
ought not to have been tried together.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/3192/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
4.1 Mr. Bhatt further submitted that the applicant's FIR
was registered in prior point of time i.e. on 27.2.2019 in respect of
an incident happened on 26.2.2019 for the offences punishable
under Sections 364A, 365, 323, 506 (2) and 114 of the Indian Penal
Code wherein only a reference is given about past history of how
the amount was collected by the applicant on account of some false
promises given to some of the candidates to provide them
Government Job. However, according to Mr. Bhatt, though the
aforesaid amount was repaid long back and additional amount of
Rs.92 Lacs were also paid, with a view to extort more money from
the present applicant, he was abducted, beaten and was illegally
confined by the accused persons and, therefore, the said offence
was in respect of abduction and extortion and not in respect of
cheating and, therefore, it was altogether a distinct offence
wherein except for Alvesharbhai Jani, accused persons were not
there. Merely because there was one common person who was a
witness in the other FIR and not even the complainant, the same
ought not to have been treated as cross case. He further submitted
that an application for joint trial also does not bear any provision
under which it is made and, therefore, without there being any
mention about the provision applicable for making such an
application, the learned Trial Court ought not to have passed the
impugned order to try both the cases together and if any order was
required to be passed, then in that case, a detailed reasoned order
was required to be passed. In the instant case, all that is stated by
the learned Trial Court is that looking to the facts and
circumstances of the case, as there are cross cases, the same are
required to be tried together. These observations are absolutely
vague and unjustified and, therefore, the impugned order is
required to be quashed and set aside.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/3192/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
5. Mr. Ronak Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondent No.1 submitted that considering the
nature of dispute which is of private nature, this Court may pass
appropriate order. However, he states that as such, there is no
illegality committed by the learned Trial Court while passing the
impugned order.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Kuldeep Vaidya appearing for
respondent Nos.2 to 13 could not point out anything from the
record to indicate that the application for trying both the cases
together was made under which provision. He repeatedly
submitted that it is not relevant and what is required to be seen is
that both the cases arise out of the same cause and, therefore, the
same can be termed as cross cases. However, he could not point
out any decision or any other provision of law as to how the
impugned order can be said to be justified or whether the same is
required to be passed without even putting the other side to notice
and to put their version.
6.1 As last attempt, learned advocate Mr. Vaidya relied
upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Sudhir v. State of Madhya Pradesh with State of Madhya
Pradesh v. Lavkush, dated 2.2.2001 in Criminal Appeal
No.135 of 2001 and 136 of 2001 and by relying upon paragraph
8 of the said decision, he submitted that it is a salutary practice,
when two criminal cases relate to the same incident, they are tried
and disposed of by the same court by pronouncing judgments on
the same day. Such two different versions of the same incident
resulting in two criminal cases are compendiously called "case and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/3192/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
counter case" by some High Courts and "cross cases" by some
other High Courts. He, therefore, would submit that the above
decision would squarely be applicable in the facts and
circumstances of the case and, therefore, the learned Trial Court
was justified in passing the impugned order. He, therefore, prayed
for dismissal of the petition.
7. No other submissions were made by learned advocates
appearing for the respective parties nor any decision was relied on.
8. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties and perused the record. On perusal of the
record, I found that the FIR registered by the applicant was prior in
point of time and the date and time of the offence as stated in the
said FIR is dated 26.2.2019 for which FIR was registered on
27.2.2019. The said FIR dated 27.2.2019 being I C.R. No.22 of
2019 was filed with Shihor Police Station for the offences
punishable under Sections 364A, 365, 323, 506 (2) and 114 of the
Indian Penal Code and the same was in respect of abduction and
extortion of money and illegal confinement of the applicant.
9. After 14 days therefrom i.e. on 12.3.2019, another FIR
bearing I C.R. No.41 of 2019 was filed by one Kaushik Manubhai
Joshi with Ghogha Road Police Station, Dist. Bhavnagar on
12.3.2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465,
468, 471, 473, 476, 120-B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code
alleging that he has collected a total sum of Rs.5,27,20,000/- from
various persons upon a false promise that he will provide them
Government job as he knows higher Government Officers and
Secretaries of the Government. The said FIR relates to an incident
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/3192/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
which had taken place between 1.3.2016 and 24.5.2017. Therefore,
when the aforesaid incident had taken place only upto 24.5.2017,
the said incident cannot be said to be a cross case in terms of
Section 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Further, the
said offence is also registered under absolutely different Sections
and the offences are registered in two different Police Stations
having distance of around 25 Kms. Hence, when the incident
according to reading of the FIRs have taken place in the
jurisdiction of two different Police Stations, the same cannot be
termed as cross cases, according to this Court.
10. Paragraph 8 of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Sudhir v. State of Madhya Pradesh with
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Lavkush, dated 2.2.2001 in
Criminal Appeal No.135 of 2001 and 136 of 2001 relied upon
by learned advocate Mr. Vaidya reads as under :-
"It is a salutary practice, when two criminal
cases relate to the same incident, they are tried
and disposed of by the same court by
pronouncing judgments on the same day. Such
two different versions of the same incident
resulting in two criminal cases are
compendiously called "case and counter case"
by some High Courts and "cross cases" by some
other High Courts. Way back in nineteen
hundred and twenties a Division Bench of the
Madras High Court (Waller, and Cornish, JJ)
made a suggestion (In Re Goriparthi
Krishtamma - 1929 Madras Weekly Notes 881)
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/3192/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
that "a case and counter case arising out of the
same affair should always, if practicable, be
tried by the same court, and each party would
represent themselves as having been the
innocent victims of the aggression of the other."
11. The above observations specifically states that two
different versions of the same incident resulting into two criminal
cases are compendiously called "case and counter case" or the
Cross cases. In the instant case, incidents are different, time of
incidents are also different, the Police Station who registered the
FIR are also different and, therefore, both the cases ought not to
have been termed as case and counter case. Not only that,
application to conduct the joint trial of both the cases also does not
bear that under which Section, the application is made and even
the order passed by the learned Trial Court also does not give any
reason as to how the aforesaid cases can be termed as cross cases
and why it is required to be tried together. In the instant case, all
that is stated by the learned Trial Court is that looking to the facts
and circumstances of the case, as there are cross cases, the same
are required to be tried together.
12. Even otherwise, it is the duty of the respondents herein
who applied for joint trial to demonstrate that if joint trial of both
the cases are not conducted together, the same would amount to
miscarriage of justice and it is expected of the concerned Court to
pass a reasoned order justifying the order whereby joint trial was
ordered. However, on perusal of the impugned order, the Court
finds that no reasons are assigned except for the fact that the
learned Trial Court has considered the facts and circumstances of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/3192/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
the case. That is an additional ground to quash and set aside the
impugned order.
13. Further, I am conscious of the fact that the impugned
order is dated 4.3.2020 and, therefore, a specific query was put by
the Court to learned advocates appearing for the respective parties
as regards the status of the trial and all of them in one voice have
stated that the trial has not moved further on account of pendency
of this petition. Further, the petition was filed in the year 2022 and
the impugned order is of the year 2020 and though nothing had
happened in the trial and till today, the trial has not proceeded
further and the fact that the impugned order is passed without any
justifying reasons, in that case, the impugned order is required to
be quashed and set aside.
14. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The
order dated 4.3.2020 passed below Exh.1 in Sessions Case No.14 of
2020 by learned Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar is quashed and set
aside. Rule is made absolute to the above extent. No order as to
costs.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J)
SAVARIYA
