Gujarat High Court
Bindubhai Govindbhai Solanki vs State Of Gujarat on 9 July, 2025
Author: Nirzar S. Desai
Bench: Nirzar S. Desai
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/23167/2024 ORDER DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET
ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 23167 of 2024
==================================================
BINDUBHAI GOVINDBHAI SOLANKI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==================================================
Appearance:
MR BHAVIK R SAMANI(8339) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR RONAK RAVAL APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 09/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State. By way of this petition, the petitioner has
prayed for quashing and setting aside the FIR registered at
Olpad Police Station vide C.R. No.11214042231400/2023 under
Sections 406, 420, 120(b) and 114 of the IPC and subsequent
proceedings which has culminated in Criminal Case
No.4210/2023.
2. As per the FIR in question registered by one Hitesh
Dhirubhai Vaghasia, he has stated that he is a land broker
dealing with the purchase and sale of land. In April 2017, he
met a friend of his friend Bindubhai Govindbhai Solanki i.e.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/23167/2024 ORDER DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
the present petitioner. At that time, the present petitioner
informed the complainant that the land bearing Block No. 199,
Survey No. 175, Ad-measuring 15,449 square meters located at
village Vihara, is a land which can be converted into NA by
paying the premium, is original owned by one Shailesh
Balubhai Patel and he has entered into agreement to sell on
06.04.2015 for a consideration of Rs.1 crore. Out of this, Rs. 5
lakhs was paid on 06/04/2015 in cash, and Rs. 90 lakhs was
further paid on 13/04/2015. The remaining amount of Rs.5
lakhs was to be paid at the time of executing the sale deed.
There were two persons namely Himatbhai Patel and Vipulbhai
Solanki were the witnesses of aforesaid deal and a receipt of
payment of Rs.90 lacs was also shown to the complainant.
Pursuant to the afore said deal on 13.04.2015, a notarized
agreement to sell was executed without possession of land
between said Shaileshbhai and present petitioner which was
registered at serial No.538/2015 in the books of Notary.
Thereafter, on 05.03.2016, the present petitioner paid another
Rs.20 lacs in cash and got executed another agreement to sell
with possession vide Serial No.325/2016 registered in the books
of Notary dated 16.03.2016. Thereafter, on 05.04.2016, a
public notice was also given and upon showing the paper in
the revenue record,the name of Shaileshbhai was there in the
revenue record and therefore, the complainant decided to
purchase the said land from the present petitioner. Ultimately,
the complainant consulted with his partner and the deal was
finalized for ₹1,40,00,000/-. As per the 'Sauda chhithi', upon
payment of ₹5,00,000/-, the possession of the land would be
given to the complainant. Further, an amount of ₹10,00,000/-
was paid to Shailesh Balubhai Patel. Thereafter, upon obtaining
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/23167/2024 ORDER DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
the title clearance certificate and making the full payment of
the consideration amount, the registration of sale deed would
be executed, as per the terms of the "Sauda Chitthi". The
"Sauda Chitthi" was executed in the presence of witnesses
Mahipalsinh Chudasama and Divyaraj B Gadhavi.
3. On 26/04/2017, on a stamp paper of ₹100, an agreement
to sell with possession was executed between the present
petitioner and the partner of Hitesh Dilipbhai Pansuria and by
way of seven different cheques, a sum of ₹10 lakhs was paid
to the present petitioner. Whereas 50% of the total
consideration of ₹1.40 crores i.e. ₹70 lakhs -- was to be paid
prior to the execution of the sale deed, and the remaining
amount of ₹60 lakhs was to be paid at the time of execution
of the sale deed. The aforesaid terms were incorporated in the
agreement to sell with possession as well, and the same was
registered at Serial No. 183 of 2017 in the books of the
notary.
4. Thereafter, upon purchase of stamp papers worth
₹1,22,600/- in the name of the complainant, an agreement to
sell with possession was executed. This registered agreement to
sell was registered before the Sub-Registrar, Olpad, on
01/05/2017 vide Serial No. 6102/2017, wherein the present
petitioner signed as one of the witnesses. At that time, a sum
of ₹20 lakhs was paid through various cheques, and it was
decided that the remaining amount would be paid once the
charge on the land was lifted. In this regard, the said
Shaileshbhai Balubhai Patel was also given a receipt
acknowledging the various amounts paid by the complainant.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/23167/2024 ORDER DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
Since then, possession of the land has remained with the
complainant.
5. As per the FIR, after the aforesaid execution of the
agreement to sell with possession, the present petitioner has
accepted a total amount of ₹25,98,000/- through various
cheques and that is how, after the deal to sell the land was
finalized, a total amount of ₹35,98,000/- was received by the
present petitioner. Upon the say of the present petitioner, a
sum of ₹55,98,000/- was paid to Shailesh Balubhai Patel and
the remaining amount of consideration of ₹84,02,000 was to
be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed.
6. As per the FIR, thereafter, the present petitioner
demanded a sum of ₹15,00,000 from the complainant for the
purpose of lifting the charge from various banks and societies
and despite receiving the aforesaid amount, he did not clear
the charge from the said land. Thereafter, he was not
responding to the complainant. Thereafter, some incident took
place on 21.09.2017,whereby it is alleged that the property
over the land was damaged and thereafter, on 04/10/2017, a
meeting was held between the parties, wherein it is alleged
that Shaileshbhai Patel told to complainant that he does not
want to sell the land to them and would return the amount
back along with possession of the land. At that time, one
Parbat Gadhvi told the complainant that the said land had
already been agreed to be sold to him through a registered
agreement to sell, bearing number 6944/2017, dated
17/04/2015 and this fact was narrated by the brother of the
complainant to him. Upon making inquiries with the Sub-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/23167/2024 ORDER DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
Registrar, Olpad, it was found that, prior to the complainant,
an agreement to sell in respect of the land in question had
already been executed in favour of one Bharatbhai Madhabhai
Desai. This agreement was registered under Serial No. 6944 of
2015, dated 17/04/2015. Thereafter, the said Shailesh Balubhai
Patel died on 24/04/2021. As per the FIR, though the present
petitioner was aware that on 17.04.2015, the land in question
had already been agreed to be sold to the aforesaid Bharatbhai
Madhabhai Desai, despite that in the year 2017, the land was
agreed to be sold to the complainant by way of registered
agreement to sell under Serial No. 6102 of 2017, dated
01/05/2017 and the present petitioner and the said
Shaileshbhai Patel, pocketed a sum of ₹55,98,000 as part
consideration for the sale, and an additional ₹15,00,000 for
clearing the charge, thereby, receiving a total amount of
₹70,98,000 from the complainant. Therefore, it is alleged that
they have cheated the complainant.
7. The present petitioner has filed this petition seeking
quashing of the aforesaid FIR. The FIR pertains to the year
2013 and was registered on 24/10/2023. Thereafter, a charge-
sheet was filed. It is in this background that the present
petition has been filed, subsequent to the filing of the charge-
sheet
8. Learned advocate Mr. Samani submitted that the offence
in question is of a civil nature. The present applicant has not
executed any agreement to sell in favour of the complainant;
rather, the agreement to sell was executed by the original
farmer, namely Shailesh Balubhai Patel. Even as per the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/23167/2024 ORDER DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
complaint, the amount was received by the said Shailesh
Balubhai Patel. Therefore, the present applicant has been
falsely been implicated in the offence in question. Learned
advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Samani, further submitted that
a Civil Suit had already been filed at an earlier point in time,
being Special Civil Suit No. 27 of 2020, before the Court of
the Learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Olpad, by The
partner of the complainant Hitesh Dilipbhai Pansuriya, in
which the present applicant is also shown as Plaintiff No. 3.
Therefore, it is submitted that as early as in 2022, the present
applicant was aware about the fact that the land did not
belong to the present applicant. Furthermore, Exhibit 5
application in the aforesaid suit was rejected. Hence,
registration of the present FIR is an afterthought and amounts
to an abuse and misuse of the process of law. Learned
advocate Mr. Samani further submitted that the application for
discharge preferred by the present petitioner, being Criminal
Miscellaneous Application No. 4210 of 2023, was rejected vide
order dated 05.07.2024, passed by the Learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Olpad. Against the said order, Criminal Revision
Application No. 321 of 2024 was preferred by the petitioner,
which was also rejected vide order dated 28.10.2024 by 12 th
Additional Sessions Judge, Surat. Therefore, the present
petitioner has preferred this petition
9. According to learned advocate Mr. Samani, the present
petitioner is, in fact, a victim who was also duped by the
original farmer, Shaileshbhai Balubhai Patel. As indicated in
the FIR, the present petitioner at relevant point of time had
narrated before the complainant that he has also paid a sum of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/23167/2024 ORDER DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
Rs.90 lakhs in the year 2015. Therefore, the present petitioner
is an absolutely innocent person, and this is a fit case for
quashing the FIR qua the present petitioner.
10. Learned advocate Mr. Samani relied upon the decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Joseph Salvaraj A
Vs. State of Gujarat and Others, reported in (2011) 7 SCC 59,
and submitted by relying upon para. 28 that when a civil suit
had already been filed at the time when the FIR was registered
and the complainant is already contesting that suit, there was
no cause of action to register the FIR against the present
applicant and therefore, the present case is a purely civil
dispute giving a color of criminality. As such, the impugned
FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are
required to be quashed and set aside.
11. Thereafter, learned advocate Mr. Samani relied upon
another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Mukeem Ahmad & Others Vs. State of U.P., passed in Criminal
Appeal No. 1296 of 2023, decided on 09th May 2023. By
relying upon the said judgment, learned advocate Mr. Samani
submitted that, since the civil suit was filed in the year 2020
and the FIR came to be registered in 2023 and on the
aforesaid facts concealed in the FIR, hence, on the aforesaid
grounds, the FIR is required to be set aside.
12. Thereafter, learned advocate Mr. Samani relied upon
another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Arvindbhai Maganlal Master v. State of Gujarat reported in
2015(1) GLH 149. By relying the same, learned advocate
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/23167/2024 ORDER DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
submitted that in an offence, when in civil dispute it must not
given to the colour of criminality, it is the duty of the Court
to quash the FIR in order to prevent abuse of the process of
law. The learned advocate Mr.Samani further submitted that
delay in registration of the FIR is not explained.
13. Except for the above submissions and the decisions
referred to herein-above, no other submissions were made, nor
any other decision cited by learned advocate Mr. Samani.
14. Learned APP Mr. Ronak Raval, appearing for the State,
vehemently opposed the petition and submitted a report of the
Police Inspector, Olpad Police Station, dated 09/07/2025. From
the said report, it was pointed out to the Court that the
present applicant has not only pocketed a sum of ₹55,98,000/-,
in connivance with the said Shailesh Balubhai Patel, but in
addition to that, the present applicant has also collected a sum
of ₹15 lakhs from the complainant, with the assurance that the
charge over the land in question would be lifted. The Learned
APP further pointed out, based on the record and the FIR
itself, that the present applicant was well aware of the fact
that an agreement to sell had already been executed by the co-
accused, Shailesh Balubhai Patel, in favour of one Bharatbhai
Madhabhai Desai in the year 2015. Despite this, the applicant
misrepresented to the complainant in 2017 that he hold a valid
agreement to sell, without disclosing the existence of the prior
agreement executed in favour of Bharat Desai, which was still
valid. He collected part payment from the complainant, and,
despite knowing that there was a charge over the land in
question, he collected a sum of ₹15 lakhs from the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/23167/2024 ORDER DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
complainant for lifting the said charge but never got it lifted.
Therefore, his prior knowledge, as evident from the FIR,
suggests a strategic and systematic design by the applicant to
dupe the complainant and extract money under the guise of
selling the land. The Learned APP further submitted that the
petitioner's hue and cry about projecting himself as a victim is
baseless, primarily because it is merely his assertion that he
paid a sum of ₹90 lakhs to the owner of the land, Shailesh
Balubhai Patel. This fact is not supported by any record and is
only mentioned in the FIR as per the complainant's version
that it was the present petitioner who made such a claim to
the complainant. Secondly, considering the conduct of the
present applicant, even if it is accepted that he was also duped
to the extent of ₹90 lakhs by the co-accused Shailesh Patel,
there is nothing on record to show that the applicant made
any effort to recover the alleged amount of ₹90 lakhs, either
through a civil remedy or by initiating criminal proceedings.
15. Further, learned APP submitted that while it is true that
the FIR does not disclose the filing of a civil suit by the
complainant, the fact remains that the present applicant, in
connivance with the co-accused Shaileshbhai Balubhai Patel,
collected a substantial amount of ₹70,98,000 from the
complainant. Therefore, merely on account of such a technical
omission, the FIR cannot be quashed, especially in view of the
conduct of the present applicant, the present petition may be
dismissed.
16. Learned APP Mr. Ronak Rawal, upon instructions, also
submitted that the charge has already been framed in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/23167/2024 ORDER DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
ongoing trial and the matter is now at the stage of recording
evidence. Therefore, at this juncture, when a prima facie case
has been made out against the present applicant through the
filing of the charge sheet and subsequent framing of charges,
coupled with the fact that the petitioner's application for
discharge has already been rejected by the concerned trial
court and even the Criminal Revision Application filed against
the said order has been dismissed, no further relief deserves to
be granted. It is pertinent to note that the present petitioner
has not preferred any petition challenging the said dismissal
order, nor has he sought quashing or setting aside of the order
passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 321 of 2024,
below Exhibit 5, which was dismissed by the learned 12th
Sessions Judge, Surat, on 28-08-2024. In light of the above
facts and circumstances, this Court may be pleased to dismiss
the present petition with exemplary costs, as it is nothing but
a misuse and abuse of the process of law and a tactic to delay
the trial. Though the petition was filed on 2nd November
2024, but all through out only adjournment was sought and
the relief sought has only pertained to the stage of charge.
Therefore, this is nothing but clear cut delay tactics, and
therefore, this Court may be pleased to dismiss the petition.
17. Learned APP Mr. Ronak Raval relied upon the decision in
case of Mahendra Prasad Tiwari Vs. Amitkumar and others
reported in 2022 20 SCC Page 757. Referring to the said
decision, Learned Advocate APP submitted that once the
charge is framed, the Court should not interfere with the
order unless there are strong reasons to hold that, in the
interest of justice and to avoid abuse of the process of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/23167/2024 ORDER DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
court, the charge framed against the accused needs to be
quashed.
18. As far as the submission regarding delay is concerned,
learned APP relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Puneet Beriwal vs. State of NCT of Delhi,
Criminal Appeal No. 1834 of 2025, decided on 29th April
2025. By referring to paragraphs 36 and 37 of the said
judgment, Learned APP submitted that, delay in filing the FIR
has not a valid ground for quashing the proceedings,
particularly when the offence alleged is punishable with
imprisonment exceeding three years.
19. Learned APP then relied upon the decision in the case of
Kamaladevi Agrwal vs. State of West Bengal, Criminal Appeal
No. 1059 of 2001 arising out of Special Leave Petition
(Criminal) No. 1547 of 2001, decided on 07-10-2001. By
relying on the said decision, it was submitted that merely
because a civil suit is pending, or the genuineness of the
document is under challenge, cannot be a ground to quash the
FIR. The court should refrain from interfering with the
criminal proceedings at the initial stage.
20. By relying to the aforesaid decisions, learned APP Mr.
Ronak Raval prayed for dismissal of the present petition.
21. I have heard Learned advocates for the parties and
perused the record. Upon perusal of the record, it is revealed
that, as alleged in the FIR itself, the present applicant was not
the owner of the land in question. Yet, after being introduced
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/23167/2024 ORDER DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
to the complainant, he represented that he is holding a valid
agreement to sell along with possession, and entered into a
transaction involving the apportioned consideration of ₹1.40
crore. At the relevant point of time, he was aware that after
he executed an agreement to sell with the co-accused,
deceased Shailesh Balubhai Patel, the said Shailesh Balubhai
Patel had already executed a registered agreement to sell in
favour of Bharat Madhabhai Desai on 17.04.2015. This
agreement was registered at the Sub-Registrar's Office, Olpad,
bearing Serial No. 6944/2015, under which the land was
agreed to be sold to Bharat Madhabhai Desai for a total
consideration of ₹65 lakhs, out of which ₹36 lakhs had
already been received in cash. Despite being fully aware that a
registered agreement to sell had already been executed in
favour of another person, the present applicant not only
misrepresented himself as the holder of a valid agreement to
sell with possession but also, along with Shailesh Babubhai
Patel, handed over possession of the land to the complainant,
as is evident from the FIR. Therefore, the complainant has put
up a board on the land in question. Thereafter also, part
consideration for the land amounting to ₹55,98,000 was jointly
collected by the present applicant and the original owner,
Shailesh Balubhai Patel. Subsequently, the present applicant
also collected an additional sum of ₹15,00,000 from the
complainant for the purpose of lifting the charge on the land.
These facts indicate that the present applicant was the kingpin
in the entire systematic design to defraud the complainant. It
was he who initially approached the complainant and falsely
represented that he hold a valid agreement to sell with
possession in respect of the land. In reality, he only held a
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/23167/2024 ORDER DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
notarized agreement to sell with possession, which was
executed much later, on 05-03-2016 i.e. after the registered
agreement to sell had already been executed in favour of
Bharat Madhabhai Desai. Further, the present applicant was
fully aware that the land in question had already been agreed
to be sold to aforesaid party through a registered agreement to
sell executed in 2016. Despite this, he not only collected an
amount of ₹55,98,000 along with the co-accused, but also
collected an additional ₹15,00,000. This prima facie indicates
the involvement of the present applicant in the offence in
question. Moreover, the FIR was registered on 24-10-2023, and
the charge sheet has since been filed, which establishes that a
prima facie cognizable offence was made out and that the
offence in question did, in fact, take place. Additionally,
during the course of submissions, Learned APP brought to the
court's attention that charges have already been framed in the
ongoing trial. This clearly indicates that the trial has already
commenced. Therefore, when a prima facie offence against the
present applicant is evident and charges have already been
framed, the scope for interference with the ongoing trial at
this stage is extremely limited.
22. Considering the above factual aspects, I now proceed to
deal with the decisions relied upon by learned Advocate Mr.
Somani. First, in the case of Joseph (supra), it was submitted
that the dispute between the parties is of a civil nature, and
therefore, this Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction
under Section 482 of the CrPC, analogous to Section 528 of
the BNS, to quash the FIR. However, upon perusal of the FIR,
I prima facie found that the allegations disclose the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/23167/2024 ORDER DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
commission of an offence. Despite having knowledge that the
land did not belong to him, the petitioner misrepresented
himself without disclosing the existence of a prior registered
agreement to sell between Shailesh Balubhai Patel and Bharat
Madhabhai Desai. The present applicant not only facilitated
and advanced the deal but also handed over possession of the
land in question, despite the fact that the land never belonged
to him and possession was never legally vested in him. He
jointly collected a substantial amount of ₹55,98,000 with
Accused No. 1, and independently collected an additional
₹15,00,000 from the complainant for the purpose of lifting the
charge on the land. Therefore, in the present case, the decision
relied upon by learned Advocate Mr. Somani in the case of
Joseph (supra) is not applicable to the facts at hand.
23. As regards the second ratio laid down in the case of
Mukim Ahmed (supra), it is noted that the Hon'ble Supreme
Court took into consideration the fact that a civil suit had
been filed prior in point of time, which formed the basis for
quashing the FIR and consequential proceedings. However, on
perusal of the aforesaid decision, this Court finds that in
paragraph 8 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
specifically observed that, in the factual matrix of that case
and upon a plain reading of the FIR, in our opinion, no case
was made out against the applicant. In the instant case,
considering the facts of the present case, as discussed in
foregoing paragraphs, the prima facie offence against the
present applicant is made out, hence, aforesaid judgment is not
applicable in the facts of the case.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/23167/2024 ORDER DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
24. Thirdly, the ratio laid down in Arvind Magan (supra)
was also relied upon by Mr.Samani, to contend that the
dispute in the instant case pertains to an alleged breach of
contract, and therefore, suit for specific performance was
required to be filed. However, in the present case, a civil suit
has already been filed, and Exhibit 5 has been rejected. Thus,
the contention that the FIR is nothing but an attempt to give a
colour of criminality to a purely civil dispute is not sustainable
in light of the facts and circumstances of the case. In the facts
and circumstances of the present case, as discussed in the
foregoing paragraphs, a prima facie offence is clearly made out
against the present applicant. Therefore, the ratio of the
aforesaid judgments relied upon by the petitioner would not be
applicable to the present case.
25. Considering the aforesaid submissions in light of the
judgments relied upon by learned Advocate Mr. Samani, there
can be no doubt about the legal principles laid down in those
decisions. However, when the ratio of those judgments is
applied to the facts relating to the present applicant, it
becomes evident that a prima facie offence is disclosed. The
present applicant was neither the owner of the land in
question nor was there any registered agreement to sell in his
favour. On the contrary, a registered agreement to sell already
existed in favour of one Bharat Madhavbhai Desai. Despite
being aware of this fact, the present applicant collected money
from the complainant in respect of the same land. Therefore,
criminality is clearly attached to the conduct of the present
applicant, who prima facie attempted to commit an offence by
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/23167/2024 ORDER DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
collecting sale consideration for the land while falsely
projecting himself as the holder of a valid agreement to sell
with possession. As such, this cannot be treated as a purely
civil dispute, and the decision relied upon by the learned
advocate is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
26. Now, considering the decision relied upon by the
learned APP in the case of Puneet Beriwala (supra),
particularly paragraphs 36 and 37, the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
while dealing with the issue of delay in the registration of the
FIR, made the following observations:
"36. Further, accepting the reasoning given by the learned
Single Judge in the impugned order that 'there had been a
delay in registration of the FIR and because of such delay, the
allegations made by the Appellant are unbelievable' and the
submissions of learned senior counsel for Respondent Nos.2
and 3 that no complaint/FIR should be entertained 'at this
distance of time', would mean in effect in accepting the
argument that delay is a sufficient ground for quashing of the
present FIR/complaint.
37. It is settled law that delay in registration of the FIR for
offences punishable with imprisonment of more than three
years cannot be the basis of interdicting a criminal
investigation. The delay will assume importance only when the
complainant fails to give a plausible explanation and whether
the explanation is plausible or not, has to be decided by the
Trial Court only after recording the evidence. In this context,
the Supreme Court in Skoda Auto Volkswagen (India) Private
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/23167/2024 ORDER DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2021) 5 SCC 795
has held, "The mere delay on the part of the third respondent
complainant in lodging the complaint, cannot by itself be a
ground to quash the FIR. The law is too well settled on this
aspect to warrant any reference to precedents....."
27. The aforesaid paragraphs make it clear that mere delay
in the registration of an FIR cannot, by itself, be a ground to
quash the FIR. Therefore, the submission regarding delay, as
canvassed by learned advocate Mr. Samani, cannot be
accepted.
28. As far as the decision relied upon by the learned APP in
the case of Kamaladevi (supra) is concerned, when the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that while exercising powers
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. now analogous to Section 528
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the High Courts should
exercise great restraint and be slow to interfere at the initial
stage of criminal proceedings, particularly when a prima facie
case is made out.
29. Considering the aforesaid decision, coupled with the fact
that the present applicant preferred an application for
discharge before the trial court and failed, and even the
revision application against the aforesaid order was also
rejected by the revisional court, and the said order was never
challenged by the present petitioner before this Court by way
of a proper proceeding--therefore, the aforesaid adverse
judicial findings stare at the face of the present petitioner.
Moreover, the petitioner has not challenged the order passed in
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/23167/2024 ORDER DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
the revision application by the Sessions Court.
30. Apart from that, when charges have already been framed,
the decision relied upon by learned APP Mr. Ronak Rawal in
the case of Mahendra Prasad Tiwari (supra) is relevant. The
observations made in paragraph 23 of the said judgment are
particularly significant and read as under;
" Para. 23. Section 397 CrPC vests the court with the power
to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the
purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of
any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this
provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of
jurisdiction or law or the perversity which has crept in the
proceeding. "
31. Further, learned APP has also relied upon the decision in
case of Bharat Parikh Vs. CBI reported in 2008 10 SCC page
109 wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme court held in para.18
observed as under;
With regard to the second proposition regarding the High
Court's powers to look into materials produced on behalf of or
at the instance of the accused for the purpose of invoking its
powers under Section 482 of the Code for quashing the charges
framed, it has to be kept in mind that after the stage of
framing charge evidence has to be led on behalf of the
prosecution to prove the charge if an accused pleads not guilty
to the charge and/or charges and claims to be tried. It is only
in the exceptional circumstances enumerated in State of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/23167/2024 ORDER DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Suppl.(1) SCC 335, that a
criminal proceeding may be quashed to secure the ends of
justice, but such a stage will come only after evidence is led,
particularly when the prosecution had produced sufficient
material for charges to be framed".
32. In view of the above observations made by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, it is only under exceptional circumstances that
this Court may interfere with an ongoing trial. However, in the
present case, no such exceptional circumstances have been
pointed out by learned advocate Mr. Samani. Accordingly,
considering the totality of facts and circumstances and based
on the detailed discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, this
Court is of the opinion that a prima facie offence is made out
against the present applicant. Therefore, no interference in the
on going trial is required called for. Resultantly, the present
petition fails and same is required to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J)
BHAVIN MEHTA
