Gujarat High Court
Sangramsinh Naranbhai Rathva vs State Of Gujarat on 27 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/4975/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 16/06/2025
Pronounced On : 27/06/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 4975 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
SANGRAMSINH NARANBHAI RATHVA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PS CHAMPANERI(214) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR TIRTHRAJ PANDYA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
CAV JUDGMENT
1. Present petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India read with section 482 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, essentially challenging order dated 18.08.2015
passed below Exh.14 in Criminal Case No.562 of 2012, whereby,
learned Trial Court, Amreli declined to grant exemption to the
petitioner and issued non bailable warrant against the petitioner.
Casually and offhandedly, the petitioner has also preyed to
quash the proceedings of Criminal Case No.562 of 2012.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/4975/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
2. Facts of the case are as under :-
2.1. Respondent no.3 herein on 21.11.2011 lodged criminal
complaint being C.R.No.II-213/11 before the Amreli Police
Station in relation to the alleged incidents dated 17.04.2011,
23.04.2011, 21.05.2011, 22.05.11 and 24.05.2011, against the
petitioner, petitioner's father, petitioner's mother and one Shri
Virjibhai Thumar, Ex-Member of Parliament of Amreli as well as
one Shri Mohansing Rathva of Pavi Jetpur, M.L.A. of
Chhotaudepur, for the offences under sections 504, 506(2), 507,
509 and 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Respondent no 2
thereafter submitted a charge-sheet in or around 02.03.2012 in
the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Amreli Upon receipt
of the said charge-sheet, the same came to be registered as
Criminal Case No.562/12. Against the petitioner, a charge-sheet
for the alleged offence under section 506(2) came to be submitted
in relation to the alleged SMS dated 17.04.2011 to 23.05.2011.
2.2. Upon service of the summons to the petitioner, the
petitioner had appeared before the court of Id. Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Amreli through Advocate. However, the
petitioner was thereafter did not had knowledge of the dates or
the proceedings, however, came to know that on 05.06.2015 the
court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Amreli issued arrest
warrant under the provisions of section 75 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petitioner had, therefore, filed
Special Criminal Application No.3829/15 before this Hon'ble
Court and this Hon'ble Court was pleased to dispose off said
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/4975/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
petition by way of judgment and order dated 23.06.2015,
whereby non-bailable warrant dated 05.06.2015 was ordered to
be converted into bailable warrant and petitioner was ordered to
execute a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 2000/- before the trial
court on 10.07.2015 and before that the petitioner was ordered
to file an undertaking before the court to remain present on the
successive dates of hearing unless exempted by the trial court.
The petitioner had accordingly appeared before the court on
10.07.2015 and on that day the petitioner was supplied with the
charge-sheet papers of the case being Criminal Case No.562/12.
That date of hearing of the case was 18.08.2015 before the court
of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Amreli. The petitioner states
and submits that the petitioner's minor daughter aged 8 years is
a patient of sickle anemia disease.
2.3. The petitioner states and submits that the wife of the
petitioner has deserted the petitioner and on account of that the
minor daughter of the petitioner is staying with the petitioner
and since she had fallen sick and was required to be taken to the
Referal Government Hospital, Chhotaudepur, on 18.08.2015
and, therefore, the petitioner could not travel from
Chhotaudepur to Amreli to appear before the court and
accordingly, the petitioner through fax requested his advocate at
Amreli to submit exemption application from appearance. The
said application was rejected. Hence, present petition.
3. Learned advocate Mr.P.S.Champaneri for the petitioner has
taken this Court through Record and Proceedings and submitted
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/4975/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
that though FIR was lodged for the offence under sections 504,
506(2), 507, 509 and 114 of IPC, charge-sheet filed pursuant to
investigation is limited to filing for offence under section 506(2)
of IPC. He would submit that the complainant who claims that
she has married with one of the accused viz. father of petitioner
has repeatedly filed unsuccessful various litigation. Learned
advocate for the petitioner would submit that filing of FIR and
subsequently filing of charge-sheet under section 506(2) of IPC is
part of systematic theory adopted by the complainant to
pressurize petitioenr and other accused. He would submit that
essential ingredients of offence under section 506(2) of IPC i.e.
criminal intimidation with the intent to cause alarm to the
complainant is missing in the present matter. Therefoer, he
submits that FIR in question being mala fide be quashed under
inherent jurisdiction. Learned advocate Mr.Champaneri referred
to judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Ronak
Ashokbhai Kedia v/s. State of Gujarat [Criminal Misc.
Application No.4145 of 2012] and judgment passed in the case of
Pratapsinh Sabubha Gohil v/s. State of Gujarat [Special
Criminal Application No.1232 of 2015].
3.1. By making aforesaid submissions and referring aforesaid
authorities, learned advocate Mr.Champaneri submitted to allow
the petition and quash the FIR.
4. Private respondent though served did not remain present.
5. Per contra, learned APP for respondent - State submitting,
report of Investigating Officer, submitted that all the accused
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/4975/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
since did not remain present before the learned Trial Court and
cooperate in conducting trial smoothly in accordance with law,
learned Trial Court has issued warrant of arrest against all the
accused including present petitioner. It is further submitted by
learned APP that essentially, this petition is challenging the
order passed below Exh.14, whereby, learned Trial Court has
issued non bailable warrant against the petitioner for not
remaining present. It is further submitted that at earlier point of
time, petitioner had preferred Special Criminal Application
No.3829 of 2015 to quash non bailable warrant issued against
him. Since at that time, the petitioner did not remain present in
trial, learned Trial Court has issued non bailable warrant. This
Court while recording undertaking of the petitioner to remain
present on before the learned Trial Court on successive date of
hearing, converted non bailable warrant to bailable warrant.
Learned APP would submit that yet thereafter, the petitioner did
not remain present which resulted into passing of impugned
order. He would further submit that the petitioner who had
preferred Special Criminal Application at earlier point of time,
did not seek relief of quashing proceedings, suddenly rise as
phoenix and casually and offhandedly made averment only in
para 10 of the petition to seek quashment of FIR, which shows
that the petitioner is not serious in seeking relief of quashing of
FIR and charge-sheet but petitioner rather is seeking to quash
order passed below Exh.14, whereby non bailable warrant is
issued against the petitioner. He would submit that the
petitioner since has violated his undertaking given before this
Court, he is not entitled to any relief of this Court.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/4975/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
5.1. Upon above submissions, learned APP submits to dismiss
the petition.
6. Regard being had to rival submission and perusal of of
pleading made by the petitioner along with documents placed on
record, what appears that essentially the petitioner is
challenging the order passed below Exh.14, whereby, non
bailable warrant was issued against the petitioner. However,
casual and off-the-cuff pleading is made in para 10 of the
petition to challenge filing of charge-sheet in questioned FIR
which is registered as Criminal Case No.562 of 2012. It is clear
that after filing of charge-sheet, since petitioner did not remain
present for framing of charge, learned Trial Court issued non
bailable warrant against the petitioner. Hence, Special Criminal
Application No.3829 of 2015 was filed to challenge that order. At
that time, the petitioner had not questioned filing of FIR and
charge-sheet as well as registration of Criminal Case against the
him. The petitioner simply sought relief to convert non bailable
warrant into bailable warrant and gave under undertaking that
he will remain present before the learned Trial Court on
successive dates during trial.
7. Finding of Co-ordinate Bench in Special Criminal
Application No.3829 of 2015, more particularly, para 3,4,7 and 8
reads as under :-
"3. The brief facts of the case are that a complaint came to
be filed against the petitioner, along with other accused, on
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/4975/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
the ground that the petitioner had given threats and
caused danger to the life of the complainant by making
phone calls and sending SMS's (Short Messaging Service).
The complaint was registered under the provisions of
Sections 504, 506(2),507,509 and 114 of the Indian Penal
Code as C.R. No. II 213/2011. Pursuant to investigation a
Chargesheet came to be filed by the Investigating Officer on
02-03/05/2012 only under Section 506(2) of the Indian
Penal Code against the petitioner and his family members.
Summons were issued to the petitioner, who had engaged
an advocate Shri Kamlesh M Maheta. According to the
petitioner, the advocate assured him that he would be
appearing on his behalf. However, the advocate did not
appear, therefore, bailable warrants came to be issued to
the petitioner on 28.02.2014, 21.11.2014 and 19.02.2015.
It is the case of the petitioner that he was made to
understand by the advocate that his presence would not be
required, therefore, he did not remain present before the
Court. Due to his absence, the non-bailable warrant in
question has been issued, on 05.06.2015. The advocate
appearing for the petitioner has informed the petitioner
that he would not appear for him henceforth. The
petitioner has now engaged another advocate. Under such
circumstances, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of
non-bailable warrant. He is ready to give an undertaking
that he would remain present before the Trial Court during
the trial.
4. Mr. K P Champaneri, learned advocate for the
petitioner, submits that the petitioner is a young man aged
33 years and has a rural background. He is engaged in
agricultural activities and, further, is running fifteen
schools in the district of Chhota Udepur. The petitioner is,
therefore, well-rooted in society and is not likely to run
away from the trial. The petitioner undertakes to remain
present before Trial Court on each date of hearing,
therefore, the prayers made in the petition be granted.
7. It appears that the non-bailable warrant was issued to
the petitioner due to his absence on successive dates of
hearing. Earlier, bailable warrants were issued to the
petitioner. When the petitioner did not remain present, a
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/4975/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
non-bailable warrant came to be issued.
8. This Court has no means of arriving at any conclusion
regarding the reason why the petitioner did not remain
present. However, it appears that the interest of justice
would be met, if the petitioner is directed to file an
undertaking before the Trial Court to the effect that he
would remain present on every date of hearing, unless
exempted by the Trial Court. Accordingly, the following
order is passed:
The non-bailable warrant dated 05.06.2015 is converted
into a bailable warrant. The petitioner shall execute a bail
bond in the sum of Rs.2,000/- before the Trial Court on
10.07.2015. Before that, he shall file an undertaking before
the Court to remain present on the successive dates of
hearing, unless exempted by the Trial Court."
8. Aforesaid undertaking given to the Court has not been
followed in spirit and again the petitioner did not remain present
before the learned Trial Court which lead learned Trial Court to
pass for issuance of non bailable order against the petitioner.
Said order is challenged before this Court by way of present
petition.
9. Report tendered by Investigating Officer indicates that
none of the accused are remaining present before the learned
Trial Court and arrest warrant against them has been issued by
the learned Trial Court. Conduct of petitioner appears that he is
not intending to cooperate learned Trial Court in proceedings.
10. Learned advocate Mr.Champaneri submitted that this
Court by order dated 21.08.2015 has stayed the order passed
below Exh.14 and therefore, there is no question of issuance of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/4975/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
warrant. I fail to understand how staying of order passed below
Exh.14 restrain learned Trial Court from issuing non bailable
warrant. By order passed below Exh.14 learned Trial Court
declined to grant exemption from remaining present and that
rejection of order passed by the learned Trial Court has been
stayed by this Court, that does not mean that the petitioner is
oblivious from statutory liability to remain present before the
learned Trial Court in criminal trial.
11. In nutshell, the conduct of the petitioner is found faint and
tainted. Even he did not remain with his words and undertaking
given before this Court and because of that learned Trial Court
could not proceed further in trial. All these aspects indicate that
the petitioner is not entitled for discretionary relief. The
petitioner has not questioned filing of charge-sheet and filing of
Criminal Case at first instance, cannot be permitted to challenge
the same at subsequent stage.
12. The petition thus is found merit-less. Judgments relied by
learned advocate Mr.Champenari since are on different and
distinct facts would not help case of the petitioner.
13. In wake of above reasons, the petition stands dismissed.
Rule is discharged. Interim relief granted earlier, if any, stands
vacated.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SATISH
