Gujarat High Court
Roshanali Ibrahim Sanghani vs State Of Gujarat on 24 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/9149/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 9149 of 2025
==========================================================
ROSHANALI IBRAHIM SANGHANI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AFTABHUSEN ANSARI(5320) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR N M ANSARI(13533) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS. JYOTI BHATT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
Date : 24/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The Petitioner has filed this Petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 for the prayer to quash the FIR being I-CR No. 11993003250388
of 2025 registered with Anjar Police Station, Kachchh (Gandhidham) for the
offence under Sections 308(5), 308(6), 115(2), 296(b) and 351(3) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
2. It is the case of the prosecution in the FIR that the Petitioner was
blackmailing the first informant, who was running a Quarry Lease and was thus
trying to extract money from the first informant. It is against this FIR that the
present Petition is filed by the Petitioner.
3. Heard learned Advocate for the Petitioner. He submitted that the
present FIR is nothing but an abuse of process of law. It is the case of
prosecution against the Petitioner that he had projected himself to be an RTI
Activist and had threatened the first informant of publishing the news about the
irregularities found in his Quarry Lease and, on that basis, had asked the first
informant to give some money. However, the Petitioner herein is not an RTI
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/9149/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
Activist. He has not made even a single application under RTI in his life.
Therefore, there is no question of him projecting himself to be an RTI Activist.
He submitted that the Petitioner is taking genuine cases, where some serious
irregularities are noticed, and has brought those irregularities to the notice of
the concerned department of the State Government, and the concerned
authorities have also initiated action against those Quarry Leases for those
irregularities and, several such Quarries have also been ordered to be closed by
the State Government on the basis of the information provided by the
Petitioner. The Petitioner herein cannot be attributed any malice in doing so.
He further submitted that after the Petitioner was arrested in connection with
the present offence, the police authorities got his photographs published in the
newspapers, which is violative of the fundamental right of the Petitioner. He
therefore submitted that this Court may direct the State Government to frame
the guidelines in this regard. He further submitted that no ingredients for the
offence alleged against the petitioner in the FIR are made out. He therefore
submitted to allow the present Petition and quash and set aside the FIR in
question.
4. Learned APP has opposed the present Petition contending that the
allegations levelled against the petitioner in the FIR are serious in nature and
the ingredients of the offence alleged against the Petitioner are clearly made out
upon bare perusal of the FIR itself. Learned APP therefore submitted to
dismiss the Petition.
5. Heard learned Advocates for the parties. At the outset, it is required to
be noted that as per the settled legal position, the powers under Section 528 of
BNSS are required to be exercised by this Court in exceptional cases, and
sparingly only, when it is found that, continuing with the proceedings, would
amount to abuse of process of law.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/9149/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
5.1 The Apex Court in its judgment in case of Baxaben v. State of Gujarat
and others reported in (2022) 16 SCC 117 has held that; "even though the
inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to interfere
with criminal proceedings is wide, such power has to be exercised with
circumspection, in exceptional cases. Jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.
P.C. is not be exercised for the asking."
5.2 Further, the Apex Court in its another judgment in case of Central
Bureau of Investigation v. Aryan Singh and Ors. Reported in 2023 (18) SCC
399 has held; "that as per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of discharge
and / or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising powers under
Section 482 of Cr. P.C., the Court is not required to conduct the mini trial."
5.3 In view of the settled law referred to herein above, this Court is required
to consider as to whether the offence alleged against the Petitioner are clearly
made out upon bare perusal of the FIR.
7. It is required to be noted that, it was incumbent upon the learned
Advocate for the Petitioner to demonstrate that, continuing the proceedings of
FIR, would result into abuse of process of law. Learned Advocate appearing
for the Petitioner has not even made an attempt to demonstrate any such abuse
of process of law.
8. Upon perusal of the FIR, it appears that on 27.01.2025, the Petitioner
had entered the area of lease of the first informant and was taking some
photographs. The first informant, therefore asked him, as to why, he was
taking photographs of his lease. Whereupon, the Petitioner informed that he is
a Journalist and an RTI Activist and also the President of HDPI. He also
informed the first informant that he was doing theft of minerals and that he
would take action against him and would get a news published in this regard
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/9149/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
and will see to it that his lease is closed, and if, he do not want his lease to be
closed, he should pay money to him every month. The owners of the
neighbouring leases are also paying him money every month for the said
purpose. It is also alleged against the Petitioner in the FIR that upon being
protested by the first informant, the Petitioner started abusing the first
informant and also manhandled him. Upon bare perusal of the FIR with the
aforesaid contents, it cannot be said that the offences alleged against the
Petitioner in the FIR are not made out.
9. It is sought to be contended on behalf of the Petitioner that the present
FIR has been lodged with some oblique motive by the first informant.
However, except bare assertion, learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner
is not in a position to point out any oblique motive on the part of the first
informant to falsely rope in the Petitioner. It is also submitted that in the past,
the Petitioner had genuinely raised the issues with regard to the irregularities
being committed by Quarry Lease holders and the concerned authorities had
taken action against those wrongdoers. That would not mean that this Court
should hold in favour of the Petitioner at this stage. On the contrary, it may
also be argued that the issues raised by the Petitioner in the past against several
Quarry Lease holders and action taken thereon by the authorities may have
provided impetus to the Petitioner to commit the present offence. However, all
these issues would require collection of evidence and appreciation of the same
during the course of trial and all these defence would be available to the
Petitioner during trial. As held by the Supreme Court in its judgments as
discussed herein above, this court is not required to conduct a mini trial at the
stage of quashing of FIR and therefore the defence which will be available to
the Petitioner during the course of trial are not required to be considered at this
stage.
10. It is also contended on behalf of the Petitioner that after the Petitioner
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/9149/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
was arrested in connection with the present offence the police authorities got
his photographs published in the print as well as electronic media, which had
violated the fundamental rights of the Petitioner. There is nothing on record to
indicate that it was the local police authorities, who had invited the Journalist
and the media persons to the police station. Moreover, issuance of a guideline
in this regard is the domain of the State Government, and therefore, it would be
open for the Petitioner to raise his grievance in this regard before the
appropriate authority of the State Government.
11. With these observations, the Petition being devoid of merit, is hereby
dismissed.
(M. R. MENGDEY,J)
J.N.W / 105
