Hitesh Vinaichandra Makadia vs State Of Gujarat
2025 Latest Caselaw 540 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Hitesh Vinaichandra Makadia vs State Of Gujarat on 3 July, 2025

                                                                                                              NEUTRAL CITATION




                             R/SCR.A/16760/2024                                 ORDER DATED: 03/07/2025

                                                                                                               undefined




                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                         R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 16760 of 2024
                       ==========================================================
                                                  HITESH VINAICHANDRA MAKADIA
                                                              Versus
                                                     STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       H P BAXI(9459) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
                       SHIVANI R MODI(9280) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
                       MR ROHAN SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                       ==========================================================
                            CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                                                            Date : 03/07/2025

                                                             ORAL ORDER

1) By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the BNSS, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 21.11.2024 passed by learned 5 th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot, rejecting the complaint filed by the petitioner.

2) Heard Mr. H.P Baxi, learned counsel for the petitioner through virtual mode and Mr.Rohan Shah, ld. APP for the respondent State.

3) Main grievance of learned counsel for the petitioner is that, learned Magistrate has committed an error in rejecting the complaint of the petitioner and not passing any direction to the police authority and thereby, failed to comply with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in case of Lalita Kumari V/s. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the police has registered the offence of lesser offence instead Sections 105 and 107 of BNS.

4) Having heard the submissions made by both sides and upon perusal of the report submitted by Kuvadava Road Police Station, Rajkot Rural, it

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/16760/2024 ORDER DATED: 03/07/2025

undefined

appears that the FIR has been registered under Sections 106(1) and 125(b) of the BNSS. The investigation is complete, and the chargesheet has already been filed. Once a chargesheet has been filed whether for a lesser offence or for any other offence, appropriate remedy lies elsewhere and not by approaching this Court. Chargesheet No.23/2025 has been filed on 13.02.2025. If there is any grievance regarding the investigation, a different remedy is available under the law. The main grievance of the petitioner is against the learned Magistrate, who, according to the petitioner, failed to issue directions as per the judgment in Lalita Kumari (supra). However, this is not a case where the police failed to register the FIR; rather, the grievance pertains to the alleged improper investigation. If such a grievance exists, the appropriate remedy lies under the Code of Criminal Procedure / BNSS, and not by approaching the Magistrate

5) In light of the law laid down in the case of Kailash Vijayvargiya v. Rajlakshmi Chaudhary, reported in (2001) 5 SCC 34, it is well settled that during the course of investigation, the Magistrate has no authority to direct the police as to the manner or method in which the investigation is to be conducted. In fact, the role of the Magistrate during the investigation stage is limited, and therefore, there is little to no scope for interference by the Magistrate in the investigation process.

6) In view of the above, the learned Magistrate has not committed any error in rejecting the complaint of the petitioner vide order dated 21.11.2024, as the Magistrate has no power to direct the manner or method in which the investigation is to be conducted, nor to add or alter any sections at the investigation stage. Any remedy available to the petitioner lies on a different legal footing. Furthermore, the mere filing of a chargesheet is not conclusive for framing of charges; the Court is required to examine the material on record and determine whether sufficient

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/16760/2024 ORDER DATED: 03/07/2025

undefined

grounds exist to proceed against the accused. On this count as well, the present petition, being misconceived, deserves to be dismissed.

                       7)       Accordingly, petition stands dismissed.




                                                                          (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)

                       SUCHIT