Gujarat High Court
Cahuhan Kailasba Bharatsinh vs State Of Gujarat on 25 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/8640/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 8640 of 2025
==========================================================
CAHUHAN KAILASBA BHARATSINH
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HARSHADKUMAR D PANCHAL(9015) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR MANAN MAHETA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 25/06/2025
ORAL ORDER
Present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
r/W.528 of BNSS is filed seeking quashment of impugned judgment
dated 22.11.2024 passed by the learned 7th Additional Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Mehsana in Criminal Case No.1136 of 2023.
Having heard learned advocate for the respective parties and
perusing the record it appears that the petitioner has directly
approached this Court challenging the judgment and order of
conviction without resorting to the alternative statutory remedy
available to the petitioner and hence, as per the law laid down by this
Court in the case of Bhoomi Exim & Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr.
(SCR.A/12711/2023, dtd. 07.10.2023); Arun Shankar Shukla Vs.
State of U.P & Ors, reported in 1999 (6) SCC 146 and Hamida Vs.
Rashid alias Rasheed and Ors. reported in (2008) 1 SCC 474, this
Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition. The Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Hamida (Supra) has been pleased to
observe in Head-note B as under:
"B. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - S.482 - Inherent powers of High
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/8640/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/06/2025
undefined
Court - Scope - Limits of - Alternative remedy - Availability of - Effect
- Held, has to be exercised sparingly with circumspection and in rare
cases and that too to correct patent illegalities or when some
miscarriage of justice is done - Practice of High Courts in entertaining
petitions under S.482, when there was an effective alternative remedy
available, deprecated - Ends of justice would be better served if
valuable time of the Court is spent in hearing those appeals rather
than entertaining petitions under S.482 CrPC at an interlocutory stage
which are often filed with some oblique motive in order to circumvent
the prescribed procedure, as in the instant case, or to delay the trial
which enable the accused to win over the witnesses by money or
muscle power or they may become disinterested in giving evidence,
ultimately resulting in miscarriage of justice (paras 7, 8 and 13)"
It is also appropriate to refer to the decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Manoj Vasudev Sompura Vs. State of
Gujarat reported in 2024 (3) GLR 1737 and Sharad Jethalal Savla Vs. State
of Gujarat & Ors. in CRMA No.19862/2025.
In view of the above decisions as well as the fact that statutory
remedy is available under law, this Court is not inclined to entertain
the present petition in exercise of power under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India and Sec.528 of BNSS. Accordingly, present
petition is dismissed. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into
the merits of the matter. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file
appropriate proceedings before appropriate forum.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.)
Ajay
