Gujarat High Court
Jayantibhai Veljibhai Sanchaniya vs State Of Gujarat on 1 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/4185/2015 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 4185 of 2015
==========================================================
JAYANTIBHAI VELJIBHAI SANCHANIYA & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR TATTVAM K PATEL(5455) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
ADVOCATE NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No.
2.1,2.2.1,2.2.2,2.3,2.4,2.5,2.6
MR. CHINTAN DAVE, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 01/10/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Ms. Trusha K. Patel, assisted by
learned advocate Mr. Nisarg Raval for the petitioners, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
2. By way of the present petition filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Cr.P.C."), the
petitioners seek to quash and set aside M Case No.11 of 2014 of Jodiya
and also order dated 20.11.2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Jodiya in Criminal Inquiry Case No.19 of 2014.
3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits
that the impugned order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class is manifestly illegal and unsustainable. It is submitted that the
learned JMFC has failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of
recording verification under the Code of Criminal Procedure and,
notwithstanding the same, has mechanically issued directions to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/4185/2015 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025
undefined
investigate the alleged offence under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Such
order, being devoid of statutory compliance, warrants immediate
quashing.
3.1. It is further submitted that the order passed by the learned JMFC
is entirely non-speaking and bereft of any reasoning or judicial
rationale. No justification has been assigned for issuance of the
impugned direction. In consequence thereof, the order, as well as the
M.Case registered pursuant thereto, are liable to be quashed in the
interest of justice.
3.2. Learned Senior Advocate further submits that, upon perusal of
the observations recorded by the Mamlatdar in RTS Nos. 129/10 and
139/10, it is evident that the acts of alleged fraud and forgery have
been perpetrated by the complainant himself and not by the petitioners
herein. The petitioners, therefore, have been falsely implicated in a
matter of their own innocence. The complaint is, thus, nothing but a
mala fide invocation of the criminal process with a view to harass the
petitioners. In view of the foregoing, it is submitted that the present
criminal proceedings deserve to be quashed in the exercise of this
Hon'ble Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State
submits that the petitioners have failed to make out any ground
warranting interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that
the impugned order passed by the learned JMFC is a judicial order
passed after due consideration of the complaint and the materials on
record. The mandatory provisions of the Cr.P.C., including Section
156(3), have been rightly invoked in accordance with law, and no
illegality or procedural infirmity has been demonstrated by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/4185/2015 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025
undefined
petitioners.
4.2. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is submitted that the present
petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed, and the
criminal proceedings ought to be allowed to continue unimpaired.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions and perused the
material annexed with the petition.
6. It is settled law that before exercising power under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is required to apply judicial mind and
record reasons justifying such direction. Directions under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. cannot be issued mechanically, otherwise it may result in
unwarranted harassment of innocent persons.
7. In Ramdev Food Products Private Ltd. v. State of Gujarat,
(2015) 6 SCC 439, Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-
"Thus, the direction under Section 156(3) CrPC is to be issued,
only after application of mind by the Magistrate. When the
Magistrate does not take cognizance and does not find it
necessary to postpone the issuance of process and finds a case
made out to proceed forthwith, direction under Section 156(3)
CrPC is issued. In other words, where on account of credibility
of information available, or weighing the interest of justice it is
considered appropriate to straightaway direct investigation,
such a direction is issued. The cases where Magistrate takes
cognizance and postpones issuance of process are cases where
the Magistrate has yet to determine "existence of sufficient
ground to proceed".Category of cases falling under para 120.6
in Lalita Kumari, (2014) 2 SCC 1 may also fall under Section
202 CrPC. Subject to these broad guidelines available from the
scheme of C-PC exercise of discretion by the Magistrate is
guided by interest of justice from case to case."
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/4185/2015 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025
undefined
8. In Anurag Bhatnagar v. State (NCT of Delhi); 2025 (0)
AIJEL-SC 75631, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"38. The provisions of Section 156 (3) of the CrPC have
subsequently been interpreted and it has been held that the
Magistrate while directing for registering an FIR has to apply
his independent mind based upon legal principles and the
order so passed has to be a reasoned order. The provision so
interpreted exists from its inception. Merely because a
judgment by the Court has simply interpreted and reiterated
the established principles of law that ought to have been into
practice, it would not mean that such principles would be
applicable prospectively only from the date of its
interpretation. The interpretation made later on would not
mean that the provision had a different meaning prior to its
above interpretation. Therefore, the High Court manifestly
erred in holding that at the relevant time there was no
requirement of application of mind and for passing a speaking
order, as the judgments of the higher courts holding otherwise
have been penned down subsequently. In other words, the
provision as it stands and interpreted, requires passing of the
speaking order on application of mind from the very
beginning. Moreover, a speaking order is a part and an
essential component of the principles of natural justice, which
are applicable to every judicial order. Therefore, it was but
natural for the Magistrate to pass a reasoned order, irrespective
of the interpretation of the provision subsequently which was
in line with the principles of natural justice."
9. In the present case, the impugned order dated 20.11.2014 passed
by the learned JMFC is cryptic, non-speaking, and reflects absence of
judicial application of mind. Such an order is unsustainable in the eyes
of law, and the consequential proceedings based thereon cannot be
permitted to continue.
10. Accordingly, the present petition stands allowed. The impugned
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/4185/2015 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025
undefined
order dated 20.11.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Jodiya, in Criminal Inquiry Case No.19 of 2014 is hereby
quashed and set aside.
10.1. As a necessary corollary, M. Case No.11 of 2014 registered at
Jodiya Police Station pursuant to the aforesaid order shall also stand
quashed and effaced from the record.
11. The inquiry proceedings are restored to their original stage, with
a direction to the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jodiya, to
reconsider the matter afresh and pass an order in accordance with law,
upon due application of mind, uninfluenced by any observations made
in this order.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
MANISH MISHRA
