Gujarat High Court
Bharatbhai Karsanbhai Chaudhary vs State Of Gujarat on 9 September, 2025
Author: Nirzar S. Desai
Bench: Nirzar S. Desai
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2854/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 2854 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
=====================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
Yes
=====================================================
BHARATBHAI KARSANBHAI CHAUDHARY
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
=====================================================
Appearance:
MS HETVI H SANCHETI(5618) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR RB THAKOR(6743) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR RONAK RAVAL ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
=====================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 09/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned advocate Ms. Hetvi Sancheti,
appearing for the applicant, and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Ronak Raval,
appearing for the respondent - State.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2854/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
2. With the consent of the learned advocates
appearing for the respective parties, the matter
was taken up for final hearing. Hence, Rule.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives
service of Rule on behalf of the respondents.
3. By way of this petition, the petitioner has
prayed for quashing and setting aside the FIR
being I.C.R. No. 11195019211193 of 2021, dated
04.12.2021, registered with Deesa Rural Police
Station, Banaskantha, for the offences
punishable under Sections 403 and 409 of the
Indian Penal Code.
4. As per the impugned FIR dated 04.12.2021,
registered under Sections 403 and 409 of the
Indian Penal Code, the present applicant is
shown as accused No.3. The first informant,
namely Bhupendrabhai Dhudabhai Solanki, the then
Taluka Development Officer, Deesa, has stated
that under the Swachh Bharat Mission, it was
reported that the District Rural Development
Agency, Banaskantha, Palanpur, had committed
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2854/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
certain serious irregularities, and therefore,
an order was passed to file a criminal complaint
against them. According to the FIR, under the
Government policy for the years 2016-17 and
2017-18, persons found eligible under the scheme
for construction of toilets were entitled to
receive financial assistance of Rs.12,000/-. The
said amount was to be shared between the Central
Government and the State Government in the ratio
of 70% and 30% respectively, and the entire
scheme was to be implemented by the concerned
Taluka Development Officer (T.D.O.). As per the
FIR, in village Talepura, 117 beneficiaries were
identified for implementation of the scheme, and
sanction was granted in their favour. As per the
scheme, the amount was to be disbursed only
after the construction of toilets. Accordingly,
the contract for construction of the aforesaid
toilets was awarded to Jay Shitlama Sakhi
Mandal, Therwada, Taluka Deesa, through its
leader/deputy leader, namely Solanki Minaben
Govindbhai and Barot Godavariben Rajabhai. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2854/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
contract was awarded to them vide work order
dated 22.06.2016, and they were required to
complete the work of construction of toilets by
20.09.2017. Accordingly, after following the due
procedure prescribed under the scheme, the bills
were processed and the amount was paid to the
beneficiaries. Thereafter, one Dahyabhai
Ganeshbhai Chaudhari made a complaint to the
Director of the District Rural Development
Agency, Palanpur, pursuant to which an inquiry
was conducted, and it was found that certain
persons had received the benefits of the scheme
despite not being included in the baseline
survey. Nine persons were granted benefits
despite not having constructed toilets,
resulting in a total misappropriation of
Rs.1,32,000/-. Out of this, in one case, a sum
of Rs.10,000/- was deposited with Jay Shitlama
Sakhi Mandal, Therwada, which in turn deposited
the same with the Government. Thus, the net
misappropriation came to Rs.1,20,000/-.
Accordingly, the present applicant was arraigned
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2854/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
as accused No.3, it being alleged that he was
the contractor appointed by accused Nos.1 and 2
for construction of toilets. The aforesaid FIR,
insofar as it relates to accused No.3, is under
challenge by way of this petition.
5. Learned advocate Ms. Hetvi Sancheti drew the
attention of the Court to the averments made by
the applicant in Ground No.8, wherein it has
been categorically stated on oath by the
applicant that there is not a single document on
record to show that the present applicant was
employed by Sakhi Sevamandal, either directly or
indirectly, as a contractor for construction of
toilets. Learned advocate Ms. Hetvi Sancheti
argued the matter on the aforesaid premise,
submitting that when the present applicant was
neither employed as a contractor nor as a
subcontractor, and when there is no document
indicating that at any point of time the
applicant was appointed to construct toilets in
such capacity, coupled with the fact that the
present applicant is not a beneficiary of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2854/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
scheme who has availed any benefit for
construction of a toilet for himself, the FIR
against him is unsustainable. The entire FIR,
insofar as it relates to the present applicant,
is misconceived, and therefore, when there is no
basis for arraigning the present applicant as an
accused in the FIR, all consequential
proceedings against the present applicant are
required to be quashed and set aside.
6. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order
dated 04.03.2022, while issuing notice,
permitted the investigating agency to proceed
with the investigation. However, a direction was
issued that no charge-sheet shall be filed
against the present applicant without prior
permission of this Court. The aforesaid relief
granted vide order dated 04.03.2022 continues to
remain in operation till date.
7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Ronak
Raval, appearing for the respondent-State,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2854/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
pointed out from the records of investigation
produced before this Court through the I.O. and
submitted that the present applicant had paid a
sum of Rs.12,000/- from his account to the
Government towards settlement of the allegation
of double payment made in respect of one of the
beneficiaries. However, though the investigation
was permitted to continue ever since the first
order was passed on 04.03.2022, in this span of
three and a half years, when the investigation
is still pending and no charge-sheet has been
filed, from all the documents available with the
I.O., learned APP Mr. Ronak Raval could not
point out any material to indicate that at any
point of time the present applicant had availed
the benefit of the Government's scheme of
constructing toilets, either as a beneficiary,
or that there exists any document showing that
the present applicant was engaged to construct
toilets in the capacity of a contractor or
subcontractor, or that he had received any
payment from any Government agency under the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2854/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
aforesaid scheme. All that was relied upon by
learned APP Mr. Ronak Raval was the statement of
co-accused, namely Minaben Govindbhai Solanki
and Godavariben Rajabhai Barot, who are accused
Nos.1 and 2, stating that the present applicant
had settled the overpayment with the Government;
and it is only on the basis of the aforesaid
statement that the present applicant was
arraigned as an accused. However, there is no
corroborative material, either in the form of
documentary evidence or in the form of any
statement by any person other than the co-
accused, nor could any such material be produced
before the Court by learned Additional Public
Prosecutor Mr. Ronak Raval appearing for the
respondent - State.
8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Ronak
Raval pointed out certain statements suggesting
that the present applicant may have constructed
toilets. However, even after a thorough
investigation, no evidence has been produced on
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2854/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
records to show that the present applicant
received any amount or that there was any
contract between Sakhi Mandal and the present
applicant. Therefore, there is no material to
indicate that, even if the present applicant
constructed the toilets, he was in any way
involved in the commission of the offence in
question.
9. Considering the fact that the present applicant
is arraigned as accused No.3 and the
investigation has been ongoing for more than
three and half years, during which the learned
APP, through the I.O., could not produce a
single piece of evidence, even prima facie, to
indicate that the present applicant ever acted
in the capacity of a contractor or
subcontractor, or that he received any payment
from any Government agency, this Court is
compelled to take note of the same. The only
evidence against the present applicant is that
an amount of Rs.12,000/- was paid from his
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2854/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
account to the Government to settle the
allegation of overpayment. However, there exists
no contract in favor of the present applicant to
construct toilets, nor is there any material to
indicate that the present applicant was a
beneficiary of the scheme. The present applicant
cannot be presumed to be an accused merely on
the ground that he paid a sum of Rs.12,000/-
from his account to the Government. Accordingly,
I do not find any material against the present
applicant even after a thorough investigation
carried out by the I.O., and the only material
relied upon by learned Additional Public
Prosecutor is the statement of the co-accused.
Though such statement could be considered by the
Court, there is no supporting material to
indicate that the present applicant in any way
derived any benefit from the State, either by
failing to construct the toilets or by acting as
a contractor. When there is no material to
support the version of the co-accused, I see no
reason to continue the proceedings against the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2854/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
present applicant pursuant to the registration
of the FIR. In view of the fact that there is no
material against the present applicant, the
continuation of the FIR and all consequential
proceedings against the present applicant would
amount to an abuse and misuse of the process of
law. Accordingly, the present FIR and all
consequential proceedings against the present
applicant are required to be quashed and set
aside, and the same are hereby quashed and set
aside. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid
extent. No order as to cost.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J)
Pallavi
