Gujarat High Court
Rishabh Prakash Pahuja vs State Of Gujarat on 10 October, 2025
Author: Nirzar S. Desai
Bench: Nirzar S. Desai
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/20916/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 20916 of 2025
==========================================================
RISHABH PRAKASH PAHUJA & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. D V CHAUHAN(14670) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
MS. ISHITA B D(18175) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR RONAK RAVAL APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 10/10/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Nikhil Waje with learned
Advocate Mr. D. V. Chauhan for the petitioners.
1.1 By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for
quashing and setting aside the FIR being C.R. No.
11191006250030 dated 02.02.2025, registered with Bodakdev
Police Station, Ahmedabad, for the offences punishable under
Sections 406, 420, and 114 of the IPC, and all consequential
proceedings including the charge sheet/final report dated
23.05.2025 and Criminal Case No. 26920 of 2025 pending
before the Court of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge
and A.C.J.M., Mirzapur, Ahmedabad.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/20916/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
2. The short facts of the FIR are as under;
2.1 As per the FIR registered by one Dhruveshbhai
Gajendrabhai Patel, he has stated that he is in the business of
purchase and sale of old cars. He was in contact with one Mr.
Nasib Sheikh, who was working at Infinity Cars, a showroom
of BMW cars. About one and a half years prior to the
registration of the FIR, Nasib Sheikh informed the complainant
over phone that he had a party named Rushab Prakash Pahuja,
applicant No.1 herein, who happened to be his old client and
intended to sell luxury cars.
2.2 Upon a conference call, the complainant talked with
accused No.1 and Nasib Sheikh, where applicant No.1 stated
that he had four cars, namely Range Rover Vogue, Land Rover
Defender, and BMW 7 Series, which he intended to sell. After
receiving the car details on WhatsApp, as the complainant was
interested in purchasing the cars, he spoke to applicant No.1
over mobile phone and decided to purchase a Range Rover
Vogue at a consideration of Rs.1,65,23,276/-, a Land Rover
Defender at Rs.1,10,00,000/-, and a BMW 7 Series at
Rs.1,12,14,870/-. Thus, a total sum of Rs.3,97,38,149/- was
paid through RTGS bank transfer into the ICICI Bank, Lower
Parel Branch account of applicant No.1.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/20916/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
2.3 Thereafter, on 3rd August 2023, an MOU in respect of the
Land Rover Defender was executed between the parties. On
17th August 2023, similar agreements were executed in respect
of the Range Rover Vogue and BMW 7 Series between the
complainant and the applicants. It was decided that after
clearing the loan, the NOC would be handed over within a
period of three months.
2.4 Thereafter, as per the FIR, the present applicants, after
winning the trust of the complainant, decided to sell one more
car, namely a Mercedes Benz GLE-53 AMG bearing registration
No. MH 01 EJ 0855, at a consideration of Rs.95,00,000/-. The
complainant paid the said amount through bank transfer to the
accused persons. Although the applicants assured delivery
within a short span of time, no delivery was given till date,
and therefore, the FIR came to be registered.
2.5 Accordingly, the FIR was registered for the offence of not
providing the NOC after repaying the loan in respect of three
cars, and for not delivering the Mercedes Benz GLE-53 AMG
despite having pocketed Rs.95,00,000/-. Therefore, the FIR was
registered against the present applicants on 02.02.2025 under
Sections 406, 420, and 114 of the IPC.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/20916/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
3. In the meantime, applicant No.1 was arrested and a
charge sheet was filed against him, while a warrant under
Section 72 of the BNSS was issued against petitioner Nos.2 and
4. In the meantime, according to learned Advocate Mr.
Waje, the dispute was settled between the parties by way of
MOU, and some civil litigation is also pending between them.
Mr. Waje has further submitted that the dispute is purely civil
in nature, arising out of a commercial transaction, and
therefore, the registration of the FIR as well as the filing of
the charge sheet is nothing but an attempt to give a criminal
colour to a civil dispute.
4.1. According to learned advocate Mr.Waje, the issue on
hand is fairly covered by four different judgments of the
Honourable Supreme Court, which are as under;
1. Anukul Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another
reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 2060.
2. Abhishek Vs. State of M.P. reported in (2023) 16 SCC
3. State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamys reported in (1997)
2 SCC 699.
4. Shailesh Kumar Singh @ Shailesh R. Singh Vs. State of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/20916/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
Uttar Pradesh reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1462.
4.2. According to learned advocate Mr.Waje, in case of
Anukul Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that
the criminal law cannot be used as a tool to settle scores in
commercial or contractual matters and that such misuse
amounts to abuse of process of law. In case of Abhishek
(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court according to Mr.Waje has
held that where a criminal proceedings is manifestly attended
with the malafied and/or where the proceedings is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on
the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge is impermissible. In case of State of Karnataka
Vs. Muniswamys (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
that the savings of the High Court's inherent powers, both in
civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary
public purpose which is that a court proceedings ought not to
be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or
prosecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind the
lame prosecution, the very nature of material on which the
structure of the prosecution rests and likely would justify the
High Court in quashing the proceedings and the High court
should quash the proceedings in the interest of justice.
According to Mr.Waje in case of Shailesh Kumar Singh (supra),
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/20916/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the money cannot be
recovered in a civil dispute between the parties by filing an
FIR and therefore according to Mr. Waje, the filing of present
FIR and the registration of present FIR and filing of charge
sheet qua present applicants would amount to abuse and
misuse of process of law. Therefore, he prayed for staying the
criminal proceedings against the present applicants and
ultimately to quash the same.
5. Learned APP has placed on record report dated 10-10-
2025 submitted by the Police Sub-Inspector of Bodakdev Police
Station, Ahmedabad City, which highlights that present
applicant Nos. 2 and 3 have not cooperated with the
investigation and are absconding. On the basis of said report,
Learned APP submitted that, consequently, upon an application
for issuance of a warrant under Section 72 of the BNSS, the
Learned Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ahmedabad
Rural, Navrangpura, has issued warrants against accused Nos.
2 and 3 under Section 72 of the BNSS. Considering the non-
cooperation of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, no relief can be
granted in their favour. He therefore, submitted that this Court
may not show any indulgence in respect of a person who does
not respect the law of the land and does not cooperate with
the investigation, and the petition is required to be dismissed
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/20916/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
qua petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 on this ground alone.
5.1. According to the learned APP, as far as petitioner No. 1
is concerned, he is the person who was introduced to the
complainant by Mr. Sheikh, and all dealings in respect of the
cars, including telephonic discussions, were conducted solely
with petitioner No. 1. Considering that he was also arrested
and that a charge sheet has now been filed against him, there
is sufficient material on record. Therefore, when a charge sheet
has been filed and an offence is prima facie made out based
on the material contained therein, the defence of the petitioner
cannot be considered at this stage, as the same is a matter of
evidence. In view of the fact that a charge sheet has been filed
against petitioner No. 1, no relief can be granted to him, and
he must be relegated to face the trial.
6. Learned Advocate Mr. Waje submitted that the present
applicant Nos. 2 and 3, at the time of the commission of the
offence, were in India, but are currently in Canada and,
therefore, could not appear. To counter the aforesaid
submission, learned APP stated that merely carrying on
business in Canada does not mean that a person cannot come
to India to cooperate in the investigation. At no point, they
have shown any intention to come to India and cooperate in
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/20916/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
the investigation. Even learned Advocate Mr. Waje could not
point out any material to indicate that the present applicant
Nos. 2 and 3, at any time, demonstrated respect for the law of
the land by expressing their readiness to come to India.
Furthermore, during the arguments in this application, learned
Advocate Mr. Waje did not make any statement on instructions
that the present applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are ready and willing
to come to India to cooperate in the investigation.
7. I have heard Learned Advocates for the parties and
perused the record.
8. I have considered the overall facts and circumstances of
the case, and considered the fact that after paying a huge
amount of around Rs. 95 lakhs, the car was not delivered to
the complainant, as well as the fact that, despite execution of
the agreements between the parties, the bank loan remains
unpaid and no NOC has been issued to the complainant,
which, prima facie, constitutes an offence, as the charge sheet
has been filed and the allegations in the FIR are substantiated
by the charge sheet papers, I am of the view that a prima
facie offence is made out and, therefore, I am not inclined to
entertain this petition.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/20916/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
9. Further, the decisions relied upon by learned Advocate
Mr. Waje would not be applicable in the facts of the case,
simply for the reason that the conduct of present applicant
Nos. 2 and 3 shows that they are not cooperating in the
investigation. As far as applicant No. 1 is concerned, it is an
undisputed fact that the Mercedes car, for which a sum of Rs.
95 lakhs has been pocketed by the applicants, has not been
returned to the complainant, and delivery of the car has also
not been given.
10. Further, all other documents relied upon by Mr. Waje,
including the MOU and any consent affidavit allegedly filed by
the complainant, are matter of evidence and cannot be
considered by this Court at this stage when the charge sheet
has already been filed. Moreover, Mr. Waje could not point
out any material on record to show that at any point the loan
on the car was repaid and the NOC was issued to the
complainant. Therefore, a prima facie offence is made out, the
petition is devoid of any merit, and the same is required to be
dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J)
BHAVIN MEHTA
