Gujarat High Court
Anuj Dineshbhai Agarwal vs State Of Gujarat on 6 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/6403/2016 ORDER DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 6403 of 2016
==========================================================
ANUJ DINESHBHAI AGARWAL & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
AAKASH A GUPTA(8346) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR SANJAY R GUPTA(341) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR DAIFRAZ HAVEWALLA(3982) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR. HASHMUKH K. PATEL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
Date : 06/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. By filing the present application under Article 226 of Constitution of
India read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 the
petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:
"8. (a) To issue appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside
the summons pursuant to the complaint at Annexure - 'D' to this petition
registered with the respondent No.2 against the petitioners for the offences
punishable under Sections 406, 420, 417, 418 and 120-B of the I.P.C. by
holding the same to be illegal and unconstitutional.
(b) Pending final disposal, be pleased to stay the further proceedings pursuant
to the summons issued by the respondent No.2 at Annexure - 'D' to this
petition pending with the Crime Branch, Ahmedabad against the petitioners for
the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 417, 418 and 120-B of the
I.P.C.
(c) To pass any other and further orders as may be deemed just and proper in
the premises."
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/6403/2016 ORDER DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to file of the present petition are
such that one Abhilash Shaileshbhai Kothari being the Karta of the HUF viz.
RB and Company submitted an application with the Crime Branch,
Ahmedabad City making allegations against the present petitioners for offence
punishable under Section 406, 420, 417, 418 and 120(b) of the Indian Penal
Code. Pursuant to the said application being submitted, the petitioners herein
were telephonically contacted on several occasions asking them to remain
present before the Crime Branch, Ahmedabad City for the purpose of recording
their statements. Despite being intimated on several occasions, since the
petitioners did not appear before the authority in question, on 26.05.2016, a
communication was addressed by the Police Sub-inspector, Crime Branch,
Ahmedabad City to the petitioners asking them to remain present before him
for recording of statements. It is against this communication that the present
petition is filed by the petitioners.
3. Learned Advocate appearing for the applicant submitted that the dispute
involved in the present matter is purely of a civil nature which does not involve
any aspect of criminality, and therefore, no offence is required to be registered
in that regard. Registration of an offence after lapse of these much time would
amount to nothing but an abuse of process of law. He further submitted that the
communication in question does not bear any outward number or any reference
as regards any offence being registered nor does it refer to any entry being
reflected in the Station Diary. Under such circumstances, the Police authorities
have no authority to carry out any investigation in any such application. He
further submitted that the concerned Police authorities had come to the
residence of petitioners at Uttarakhand for serving the notice if the Police
authority in question intended to record the statement of petitioners. They could
have recorded the same when they had come to their residence for service of
notice. He, therefore, submitted to allow the present petition and quash and set
aside the impugned communication. Learned Advocate appearing for the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/6403/2016 ORDER DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
petitioners has sought to rely upon the following judgments in support of his
submissions:
(i) Judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Arshad
Neyaz Khan Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors. reported in
MANU/SC/1328/2025;
(ii) Judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Shailesh
Kumar Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. reported in
MANU/SC/0933/2025 and
(iii) Judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Lalita
Kumari Vs. Govt. of U.P. and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/1166/2013.
4. Learned APP has opposed the present petition contending that the
petitioners herein were contacted on several occasions by the Police authority
and they were asked to remain present for recording of their statements.
However, the petitioners herein chose not to remain present before the
authority in question, and therefore, the communication in question was
required to be addressed to them which shows the conduct on the part of the
petitioners in disregarding the process of law. He, therefore, submitted to
dismiss the present petition.
5. Heard learned Advocates for the parties. From the material available on
record, it appears that the Police authorities had received some application
complaining about the offence under Section 406, 420 and 120(b) of IPC being
committed by the petitioners herein, and therefore, it was requested that
necessary action in that regard be taken against the petitioners. Upon receipt of
such application before registering the offence on the basis of the said
application, the concerned Police authority thought it necessary to conduct a
preliminary inquiry into the application, and therefore, the petitioners herein
were telephonically contacted and they were asked to remain present before the
authority for recording their statements. However, since the petitioners did not
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/6403/2016 ORDER DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
remain present before the Police authorities, the communication in question
was addressed to them. It is pertinent to note that no offence on the basis of the
application received by the Police authorities, has been registered yet. It is
sought to be argued on behalf of the petitioners that without any offence being
registered, the Police authority had no authority to carry out any investigation
against the petitioners. The argument advanced by the learned Advocate
appearing for the applicant is misconceived as no investigation was being
carried out by the Police authorities. It was only for the purpose of inquiry that
the authority in question thought it necessary to record the statements of the
petitioners. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment in case of Lalita Kumari
(Supra) has issued directions whereby it is directed that if the information
received by the Police authorities does not disclose a cognizable offence, but
indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted
only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not and if the
inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must by
registered. If after carrying the preliminary inquiry, the authority in question
comes to the conclusion that a cognizance is made out and registered the FIR,
the petitioners herein have all the remedies under the law available to them
which can be availed. It is also required to be noted that the provisions of
Section 173(3) of BNSS, 2023 also authorizes the Police authorities to carry
out preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether there exists a prima-facie case for
proceeding in the matter. Thus, the present petition is misconceived and is
nothing but an abuse of process of law.
6. So far as the judgments sought to be relied by the learned Advocates for
the petitioners are concerned, they are pertaining to quashing of the FIR. As
discussed hereinabove, no FIR has been registered as yet, and therefore, those
judgments would be of no help to the petitioners.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/6403/2016 ORDER DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present petition is dismissed.
Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.
(M. R. MENGDEY,J)
RAVI OZA
