Amar @ Lallu Ashokbhai Panjwani vs State Of Gujarat
2025 Latest Caselaw 6440 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Amar @ Lallu Ashokbhai Panjwani vs State Of Gujarat on 10 September, 2025

                                                                                                               NEUTRAL CITATION




                            R/SCR.A/4969/2024                                    ORDER DATED: 10/09/2025

                                                                                                                undefined




                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                       R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 4969 of
                                               2024

                      ============================================
                                   AMAR @ LALLU ASHOKBHAI PANJWANI
                                                   Versus
                                        STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
                      ============================================
                      Appearance:
                      MR NK MAJMUDAR(430) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
                      MS MEGHA CHITALIYA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                      ============================================
                        CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                                                       Date : 10/09/2025

                                                            ORAL ORDER

1) By way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has sought for following main relief:-

"(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to quash and set aside of F.I.R. being I-C.R. No.11191040240819 of 2024 dated - 05/05/2024 registered before Sardarnagar Police Station, Ahmedabad city for the alleged offences punishable under Section 66(2), 65(a), 65(e), 116-B, 81, 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, in the interest of justice,"

2) Learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is arraigned as an accused on the basis of statement of co-accused as per which the petitioner is proposed receiver of the muddamal. The petitioner was not found in conscious possession of the muddamal. He has further submitted that the petitioner is not the owner of the rickshaw and he has nothing to do with the said vehicle. Hence, he has requested to quash and set aside the proceedings as the petitioner is falsely enroped in

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/4969/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/09/2025

undefined

the offence.

3) Learned APP has opposed the present petition on the ground that the petitioner is a habitual offender and he continuously indulged into illegal activity. Even six offences are registered against the petitioner and out of the same in two offences the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by the Co-ordinate Bench and after releasing till date the petitioner remained absconder and not joined the investigation. Not only that after his released one another offence is also registered against the petitioner. Not only the statement of the co-accused but other substantial material is also collected and CDR and locations are also found. So far ownership of vehicle is concerned the petitioner is habitual of indulging into illegal activities with same modus operandi of taking rickshaw on rent @ Rs.200/- per day and hiring driver @ Rs.1,000/- per trip, therefore, question does not arise of ownership of the said vehicle. Considering the peculiar mentality to continue such illegal activity has requested to dismiss the petition as investigation is at nascent stage and prima facie involvement of the petitioner is found. Moreover, learned APP has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in case of Dharmendra @ Dhamo Jethalal Baria Vs State of Gujarat, reported in 2025 (0) AIJEL-HC 250384. Hence, learned APP has requested to dismiss the present petition.

4) Having heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and learned APP for respondent - State and going through the contents of the FIR and material collected during the investigation against the accused it reveals that in column no.2 the petitioner is shown as absconder and whatever material is collected during the investigation suggest prima facie involvement of the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/4969/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/09/2025

undefined

petitioner. There are six offences registered against the petitioner having same modus operandi even after securing anticipatory bail in two offences he again indulged into illegal activity of muddamal. More particularly ownership of rickshaw is concerned the petitioner continued to indulge into illegal activity by adopting modus operandi to take the rickshaw on rent @ Rs.200/- per day and hire employee / driver for Rs.1,000/- per trip to transport illegal muddamal. Hence, question does not arise of the ownership of the vehicle which clearly shows the modus operandi of the petitioner. Therefore, there is prima facie involvement of the petitioner in the offence. The Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in case of Dharmendra @ Dhamo Jethalal (supra) has referred the decision of the case of S. M. Datta V. State of Gujarat (2001) 7 SCC 659, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:

"this Court again cautioned that criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage. Quashing of a complaint should rather be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule. In S. M. Datta (supra), this Court held that if a perusal of the first information report leads to disclosure of an offence even broadly, law courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere."

5) It is also appropriate to refer to the decision of the case of Emperor vs. Khwaja Nazir Ahmed reported in AIR 1945 PC 18, wherein, it has been observed that in India, there is a statutory right on the part of the police to investigate the circumstances of an alleged cognizable crime without requiring any authority from the judicial authorities. It is further observed

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/4969/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/09/2025

undefined

that it would be an unfortunate result if it should be held possible to interfere with those statutory rights by an exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. It is further observed that the functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping, and the combination of individual liberty with a due observance of law and order is only to be obtained by leaving each to exercise its own function.

6) It is also appropriate to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Aryan Singh etc. reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 379 (Para 10), wherein it is held that scope under Section 482 of the CrPC is very limited and High Court cannot conduct a mini trial. The Hon'ble Apex Court in para 10 held as under:-

7) "10. From the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has dealt with the proceedings before it, as if, the High Court was conducting a mini trial and/or the High Court was considering the applications against the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court on conclusion of trial. As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to conduct the mini trial. The High Court in the common impugned judgment and order has observed that the charges against the accused are not proved. This is not the stage where the prosecution / investigating agency is/are required to prove the charges. The charges are required to be proved during the trial on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution / investigating agency. Therefore, the High Court has materially erred in going in detail in the allegations and the material collected during the course of the investigation against the accused, at this stage. At the stage of discharge and/or while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court has a very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider "whether any sufficient material is available to

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/4969/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/09/2025

undefined

proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not."

8) In case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed thus:

" 57. iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the 'rarest of rare cases'. (The rarest of rare cases standard in its application for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context of the death penalty, as explained previously by this Court);

v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint;

vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;

vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule;"

9) Therefore, in wake wake of aforesaid discussion, no case is made out to quash the proceeding. Accordingly, present petition is dismissed. It is made clear that this Court has not examined the merits of the case.

(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)

ANKIT