Gujarat High Court
Ravindra Harishankar Tripathi vs The State Of Gujarat on 1 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8301/2014 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. 8301 of 2014
==========================================================
RAVINDRA HARISHANKAR TRIPATHI & ANR.
Versus
THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS AMRITA AJMERA for MR DAIFRAZ HAVEWALLA(3982) for the
Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR MAHESH POOJARA for MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) 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 : 01/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of this petition filed under section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners has prayed to quash and
set aside FIR being M.Case No.17 of 2014 registered with
Nakhatrana Police Station for the offences punishable u/s 406, 420
and 114 of the IPC against the petitioners herein.
2. Assailing the impugned order passed below Exh.1 in Criminal
Inquiry NO.32 of 2014, whereby the learned JMFC, Nakhatrana
passed an order for inquiry u/s 156(3) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, Learned advocate for the petitioners referring to
full bench judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ramdev
Food Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat, 2015(6) SCC 439, would
submit that the Court may not required detailed reason while passing
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8301/2014 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
the order of inquiry u/s 156(3) of the Code, but the trial Court is
required to apply its mind and to apply with brief reasons that why
inquiry u/s 156(3) of the Code is required. In the present case, it is
alleged that the petitioners have breached the terms and conditions
of the contract. It is not the case in which the Court has to pass
order for inquiry u/s 156(3) of the Code and therefore, she submits
that present petition be allowed and the impugned order may be
quashed and set aside.
3. Per contra, learned advocate for the respondent No.2 would
submit that the learned trial Court has passed necessary order in
given facts and circumstances of the case, which should not be
disturbed by this Court.
4. Learned APP joined the arguments of Learned advocate for the
respondent No.2 prays to pass necessary order.
5. Regard being had to rival submissions of learned advocates for
both the sides and giving anxious thoughts and consideration, what
could be noticed that the private respondent has filed criminal case
against the accused for the offences punishable u/s 406 and 420 of
the IPC alleging that the petitioners have breached the agreement
between the parties and as such, have committed criminal breach of
trust and forgery. The learned trial Court registered the private
complaint as Criminal Inquiry No.32 of 2014 and after hearing
learned advocate appearing for the private respondent passed
following order:- (translated into English from vernacular language)
"The complaint is registered as inquiry and the same is to
be sent to the Nakhatrana Police Station for investigation
u/s 156(3) of the Code and the Police Sub Inspector,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8301/2014 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
Nakhatrana Police Station to carry out investigation and
submit report before the Court within 20 days."
5.1 The aforesaid order is under challenge in this petition.
6. In Ramdev Food Products Pvt. Ltd. (supra), in para 20 and
22.1, the Hon'ble Apex Court reads as under:-
"20. It has been held, for the same reasons, that direction
by the Magistrate for investigation under Section 156(3)
cannot be given mechanically. In Anil Kumar V. M.K.
Aiyappa[5], [5] (2013) 10 SCC 705 it was observed :
"11. The scope of Section 156(3) CrPC came up for
consideration before this Court in several cases. This
Court in Maksud Saiyed case [(2008) 5 SCC 668]
examined the requirement of the application of mind
by the Magistrate before exercising jurisdiction under
Section 156(3) and held that where jurisdiction is
exercised on a complaint filed in terms of Section
156(3) or Section 200 CrPC, the Magistrate is
required to apply his mind, in such a case, the Special
Judge/Magistrate cannot refer the matter under
Section 156(3) against a public servant without a
valid sanction order. The application of mind by the
Magistrate should be reflected in the order. The mere
statement that he has gone through the complaint,
documents and heard the complainant, as such, as
reflected in the order, will not be sufficient. After
going through the complaint, documents and hearing
the complainant, what weighed with the Magistrate
to order investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC,
should be reflected in the order, though a detailed
expression of his views is neither required nor
warranted. We have already extracted the order
passed by the learned Special Judge which, in our
view, has stated no reasons for ordering
investigation."
The above observations apply to category of cases
mentioned in Para 120.6 in Lalita Kumari V. Govt. of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8301/2014 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
U.P.[4], [4] (2014) 2 SCC 1
22.1 The direction under Section 156(3) is to be issued,
only after application of mind by the Magistrate. When the
Magistrate does not take cognizance and does not find it
necessary to postpone instance of process and finds a case
made out to proceed forthwith, direction under the said
provision is issued. In other words, where on account of
credibility of information available, or weighing the interest
of justice it is considered appropriate to straightaway direct
investigation, such a direction is issued."
7. The application of mind by the learned trial Court before
issuing direction u/s 156(3) of the Code is sine qua non. In the
present case, perusal of the aforesaid order indicates absence of
application of mind. The learned trial Court has issued direction u/s
156(3) of the Code mechanically and therefore, the order would not
sustain.
8. In the result, present petition is allowed and impugned order
passed below Exh.1 in Criminal Inquiry No.32 of 2014 dated
28.3.2014 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is restored to
its proceedings for fresh hearing. Rule made absolute to the
aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SHEKHAR P. BARVE
