Gujarat High Court
Vijay Bhavanji Thakkar (Ruparel) vs State Of Gujarat on 14 October, 2025
Author: Nirzar S. Desai
Bench: Nirzar S. Desai
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17039/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 17039 of 2025
=====================================================
VIJAY BHAVANJI THAKKAR (RUPAREL)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
=====================================================
Appearance:
MR MITESH L RANGRAS(3324) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR KISHAN PATEL FOR NANAVATI & CO.(7105) for the
Respondent(s) No. 2
MR ADITYA JADEJA ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
=====================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 14/10/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Initially, the present petition was filed
on merits. Subsequently, the bank appeared and filed
an affidavit indicating that there are no outstanding
dues from the applicant and that a full and final
settlement has been arrived at between the bank and
the applicant. The affidavits are taken on record.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Mitesh Rangras
appearing for the applicant, learned Assistant
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17039/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
Government Pleader Mr. Aditya Jadeja appearing for
the respondent No.1 - State and learned advocate Mr.
Kishan Patel for Nanavati and Company appearing for
the respondent No.2.
3. The matter is taken up for final hearing
with the consent of the learned advocates appearing
for the respective parties. Hence, RULE.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.
Aditya Jadeja waives the service of rule on behalf of
the respondent No.1 - State and learned advocate Mr.
Kishan Patel waive service of rule on behalf of the
respondent No.2.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Mitesh Rangras, upon
instructions, states that out of two draft amendments
filed by the applicant, this Court may grant the
draft amendment dtd. 01.09.2025. Accordingly, the
draft amendment dated 01.09.2025 is granted. To be
carried out forthwith.
6. By way of this petition, the applicant has
prayed for quashing Enquiry Case No. 67 of 2002
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17039/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
bearing M. Case No. 48 of 2002 registered with
Naranpura Police Station as well as consequential
proceedings being Criminal Case No.900136 of 2005
pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Court No.9, Metropolitan Court,
Gheekanta, Ahmedabad under Sections 420, 421, 422,
424, 427, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) of the Indian
Penal Code.
7. At the outset, it was submitted by learned
advocate Mr. Mitesh Rangras that all the dues as Full
and Final Settlement with Legal Expenses is already
paid and no due certificate is also produced on
record and he points out to the affidavit filed by
Mr. Abhishek Tiwari, who is authorized officer i.e.
Senior Branch Manager of the Bank of Baroda, S.P.
Colony Branch, whereby he has stated that there are
no dues outstanding of the bank, however the bank
cannot give consent for quashing of the M. Case as
once the M. Case is registered, it is the State which
becomes the complainant. However, the learned
advocate Mr. Kishan Patel appearing for the bank
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17039/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
confirms that there are no dues of the bank. Learned
advocate Mr. Mitesh Rangras points out the series of
orders, whereby other persons, who also availed the
loan facility from the bank and against whom the M.
Case is registered and upon payment of dues, the
proceedings pursuant to the registration of the M.
Case, were quashed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court and therefore, learned advocate Mr. Mitesh
Rangras states that in view of the fact that the
present applicant also has repaid the loan amount and
no due certificate is also issued in favour of the
present applicant as well the applicant's case also
be considered in similar manner and all the
proceedings qua present applicant pursuant to the M.
Case in question are required to be quashed.
8. I have heard learned advocates for the
respective parties.
9. In view of the affidavit of the bank
produced on record and in view of the submissions
made by the parties and also considering the fact
that the amount has already been paid and no due
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17039/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
certificate has been produced, the case of the
present applicant deserves to be considered.
Moreover, considering the guidelines laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court including the observations made by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment in case of Madan
Mohan Abbot V/s State of Punjab reported in (2008) 4
SCC 582, as well as in a judgment in case of Shiji @
Pappu & Ors. Vs.Radhika & Anr., reported in AIR 2012
SC 499, wherein it has been observed that if the
continuation of the proceedings would be an empty
formality then the exercise of discretion under
Section 482 of the criminal Procedure Code would be
justified, the present application deserves to be
allowed.
10. Therefore, the present petition stands
allowed in terms of Para No.8(B). The Enquiry Case
No.67 of 2002 bearing M. Case No. 48 of 2002
registered with Naranpura Police Station as well as
consequential proceedings being Criminal Case
No.900136 of 2005 pending before the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.9,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17039/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
Metropolitan Court, Gheekanta, Ahmedabad qua present
applicant only is hereby quashed and set aside.
11. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is
permitted.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J)
Pallavi
