Gujarat High Court
Yogeshbhai Dhirajlal Varma vs State Of Gujarat on 7 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11242/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 25/09/2025
Pronounced On : 07/10/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 11242 of 2017
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 11258 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
YOGESHBHAI DHIRAJLAL VARMA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. NISARG N JAIN(8807) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR CHINTAN DAVE, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
CAV JUDGMENT
1. Since both the petitions arise from one and same issue,
with consent of learned advocates for the parties, they are heard
and decided together. This common order will govern disposal of
both the captioned petitions.
2. Both the petitioners are real brothers and one of them is
practicing advocate. On 12.03.2017, both the petitioners went to
Subh Apartments on festive of holy. Cousin of petitioners viz.
Sunishbhai Verma and his wife Ratnaben were also staying in
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11242/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
the said apartment. Altercation and skirmish took place between
both the parties. People gathered on the spot of incident. This
incident has promoted both the parties to file complaint against
each other. One of the petitioner viz. Nilesh Verma filed
complaint being C.R.No.II-123 of 2017 before Fatehganj Police
Station on 13.03.2017 for offence under section 323, 294B,
506(2) and 114 of IPC against Sunilbhai Verma and Ratnaben.
On the said day, another FIR was filed against Sunilbhai Verma
under section 66(1)(b) and 85 of the Prohibition Act vide FIR
being C.R.No.III-119 of 2017.
3. Counter FIR was registered vide CR.No.II-124 of 2017 on
13.03.2017 with Fathejgauj Police Station against both the
petitioner and their mother Lilaben for the offence under section
323, 294(kh), 506 (2) and 114 of IPC.
4. In background of filing cross complaint by both the parties,
Head Constable Rajubhai Jamalbhai having Buckle No.2473
reported to Sub Divisional Magistrate, Vadodara for lodging
Chapter Case No.96 of 2017 under section 110(g) of the Cr.P.C.
against the petitioners.
5. Filing of this report by Head Constable prompted the
petitioners to file present petitions claiming relief to quash
proceedings of Chapter Case. Later on the petitioners have
amended the petitions with relief to grant compensation of Rs.2
lakhs as according to them, the petitioners were illegally
detained by SDM in Chapter Case No.96 of 2017.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11242/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
6. Learned advocate Mr.Jain for the petitioners vehemently
submitted that to start proceedings under section 110(g) of
Cr.P.C., SDM prima facie has to satisfy that accused was so
desperate and dangerous as to render his being at large without
security is hazardous to the community. He would submit that
Chapter VIII of the Cr.P.C. contains provisions of security for
keeping peace and for good behavior. It is submitted that before
registering Chapter case or arresting accused under section 110
of Cr.P.C., SDM should satisfy about character of the petitioners
that if he is not kept in custody or he is so hazardous that
without his security, he cannot be left open in the community. In
the present case, SDM has acted mechanically and without
following provisions of law and without satisfying existence of
essential ingredients of section 110(g) of Cr.P.C., registered
Chapter case and detained the petitioners overnight. This act of
SDM amounts to breach of personal liberty of the petitioners and
therefore, State Government is liable to pay compensation. It is
submitted that no FIR except present FIR which is part of cross
complaint is filed against the petitioners which indicates that the
petitioners are not habitual offenders nor in habit of involving in
multiple offence and yet keeping the petitioners in illegal custody
would impeach fundamental right. Learned advocate Mr.Jain
therefore submitted to quash and set aside the proceedings
initiated against the petitioners questioned in the petitions and
to grant compensation of Rs.2 lakhs as petitioners were illegally
detained in custody.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11242/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
6.1. Following judgments are referred and relied by the
petitioners in support of his submissions :-
(a) Ayub @ Pappukhan Nawabkhan Pathan v/s. S.N.Sinha
[AIR 1990 SC 2069]
(b) Mohan Parmanand Khatri v/s. M.G.Ingle and Ors. [2004
Cri.L.J.1017]
(c) Rini Johar v/s. State of Madhya Pradesh [AIR 2016 SC
2679]
(d) S.Nambi Narayanan v/s. Siby Mathews [AIR 2018 SC
5112]
7. Learned APP on the other hand submitted that the
petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitions are pre-mature.
He submitted that record contains only report of Head Constable
for registering Chapter case. There is nothing more than it on
record which shows that SDM has taken security bond from the
petitioners for good behavior or believed them as persons
hazardous to community or have been detained overnight.
7.1. Making above submissions, it is submitted to dismiss the
petitions.
8. Perusal of material placed on record, this Court finds force
in the submission of learned APP. Page 7 is report of Fateganj
Police Station and page 7A is type copy of report filed by
Fateganj Police Station under section 110(g) of Cr.P.C. to SDM,
Vadodara. Except these documents, no other material is placed
on record which establish that SDM has initiated case under
section 110(g) of Cr.P.C. or any other provision of law and
obtained security bond for keeping good behavior or believed
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11242/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
that the petitioners are hazardous to the community. No order of
SDM is placed on record. Even remotely nothing on record
which indicates that petitioners were detained overnight illegally.
9. In aforesaid circumstances, the petitions are found to be
pre-mature and filed hurriedly and therefore, without discussing
merits further, this Court finds no merit in the petitions.
10. Insofar as judgments relied by learned advocate Mr.Jani for
the petitioners is concerned, it would not render any assistance
to the petitioners.
11. For the reasons stated herein-above, the petitions stand
dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief granted earlier, if
any, stands vacated. Registry to maintain copy of this order in
both the petitions.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SATISH
