Gujarat High Court
Anil Gangaram Jain vs State Of Gujarat on 15 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11431/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 03/09/2025
Pronounced On : 15/09/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 11431 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
ANIL GANGARAM JAIN & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR BHARAT T RAO(697) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7
MR AMIT C NANAVATI(1384) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR BY MANKAD(440) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR CHINTAN DAVE, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
CAV JUDGMENT
1. Following relief has been claimed under section 482 of
Cr.P.C. by the petitioners :-
"A) YOUR LORDSHIPS WOULD BE PLEASED TO quash and
set aside the Criminal Complaint filed by the respondent
NO.2 being Private Complaint NO. 857/2011 for the offences
punishable under Sections 420, 465, 471, 120-B, 114 and
34 of the Indian Penal Code on 3/8/2011 in the Court of the
Honorable 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge and Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Surat at Annexure "D" to the petition
and the order passed by the 3rd Additional Senior Civil
Judge, Surat on 21/6/2013 ordering investigation under
Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11431/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
reasons stated in the memo of the petition, in the interest of
justice.
(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS WOULD BE PLEASED TO stay further
proceedings of the Private Complaint No. 857/2011 filed by
the respondent NO.2 complainant in the Court of the
Honorable 3d Additional Senior Civil Judge and the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Surat for the offences under Sections
420, 465, 467, 120-B, 114 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code
and further be pleased to restrain the Police Inspector, Umra
Police Station from carrying further investigation in the
Private Complaint NO. 857/2011 by order dated 21 June,
2013 for the reasons stated above, in the interest of justice.
(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS WOULD BE PLEASED TO restrain
the investigation of Umra Police Station and not to arrest the
present petitioners in connection with the order passed by
the Honorable 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat in
Private Complaint No.857 of 2011 dated 21.06.2011 in the
interest of justice.
(D) Your Lordships would be pleased to grant such other
and further relief/s as may be deemed fit, just and proper in
the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of
justice."
2. Facts of the case are as under :-
2.1. It is case of the complainant that he is founder trustee and
Chairman of Bhagwan Mahavir Education Foundation since the
year 2002. The Bhagwan Mahavir Education Trust is registered
under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. It is alleged that
accused have concocted his resignation letter dated 30.11.2008.
It is also stated that accused on 08.12.2008 called meeting of
members of trust and also agenda was circulated and on
21.12.2008 resignation of the complainant was accepted in the
meeting on paper without informing the complainant and other
trustees. It is case of the complainant that it is concocted
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11431/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
resignation letter and used the same as resignation of
complainant with mala fide intention. On 23.09.2010, the
complainant made complaint to the police against the accused.
As police has not registered the complaint, complainant made
reminder application on 06.02.2011. It is further case of the
complainant that as no action was taken by the police, he has
preferred private complaint before the learned Trial Court on
03.08.2011 which was registered as private complaint no.857 of
2011 in the Court of learned JMFC, Surat. The Court forwarded
the complaint for inquiry under section 202 of Cr.P.C. The
concerned Police Inspector, Umra Police Station submitted
detailed report stating that since matter is pending before the
Charity Commissioner the complaint should be filed. On
21.06.2013, learned Judge, directed to police Inspector, Umra
Police Station to investigate the offence under section 156(3) of
Cr.P.C. Hence, present petition is filed.
3. Learned advocate Mr.Bharat Rao seeking quashment of
order in private complaint No.857 of 2011 by which learned
Additional Senior civil Judge, Surat made over investigation
under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., submitted that filing of private
complaint and passing order thereon to make investigation
under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and registering FIR under
section 154 of Cr.P.C. is not sustainable, in view of the aspect
that learned Trial Court has passed order on 03.08.2011 and
called report from concerned police station under section 202 of
Cr.P.C. It is submitted that once Court takes cognizance under
section 202 of Cr.P.C. and hand over inquiry to police authority
for investigation and obtained report thereof, learned Trial Court
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11431/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
has no jurisdiction to reverse the hand of clock and to take
cognizance for the same Criminal Misc. Application for handing
over investigation to police under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. It is
further argued by learned advocate Mr.Rao that issue of
tendering resignation from trust is pending before Charity
Commissioner and legality and validity of resignation of
complainant tendered in trust since is pending before Charity
Commissioner, on same grounds questioned FIR is not
maintainable. Learned advocate Mr.Rao referred to order dated
20.03.2014 passed by Co-ordinate Bench and submitted that
Court has passed interim order of no coercive steps in favour of
the petitioners on the ground that proceedings under section 22
of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 is pending before the
Assistant Charity Commissioner which is still pending. In view of
above, he submit that order passed by the learned Trial Court is
unjust, erroneous and deserves to be set aside.
3.1. Learned advocate Mr.Rao further submitted that
complainant has submitted resignation on 30.11.2008 as he was
facing ill health and could not actively participate in trust
activities. It is submitted that meeting of members of trust was
therefore, called on 08.12.2008 and also agenda was circulated
to all the trustees and subsequent thereto, resignation of the
complainant was accepted in the meeting. Change report was
also made over to Charity Commissioner under section 22 of the
Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 at that stage issue was raised by
the complainant and since proceedings under section 22 of the
Bombay Public Trust Act was pending before the Charity
Commissioner for adjudication, he is seized with the issue, filing
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11431/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
of impugned FIR is just nothing more than pressure technic
exerted by the complainant without waiting for outcome of
proceedings under section 22 of the Bombay Public Trust Act
which is now pending before High Court of Gujarat.
3.2. Learned advocate Mr.Rao also referred to Annexure G -
report of private handwriting expert and submitted that
signature of complainant has been verified by handwriting expert
along with signature on the resignation. This report indicates
that signature on resignation letter is that of the complainant
and thus said report itself blows up case of the complainant.
3.3. In aforesaid preemies, learned advocate Mr.Rao submits
that Court below has committed error in handing over
investigation to concerned police authority under section 156(3)
of Cr.P.C. Order passed by Court below is arid of application of
mind and since it is cryptic, he submits to quash the order
impugned in the petition at Annexure F.
4. Learned advocate Mr.Mankad for private respondent
against aforesaid arguments referred to affidavit in reply at page
no.90, more particularly, para 3,4,5,6 and 7 thereof and
submitted that investigation in the matter is to carried out. This
Court at this stage therefore cannot hold that conclusion arrived
in the private complaint is merit-less and order passed by Court
below is base less. On factual aspects, learned advocate
Mr.Mankad submits that complainant is founder Chairman and
founder Trustee of Bhagwan Mahavir Education Foundation
Trust at Surat working since the year 2002. The petitioners
nos.1 to 4 are trustees of the trust and respondent nos.5 to 7 are
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11431/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
wives of petitioner no.3,4 and 1 respectively. It is submitted that
complainant's resignation having inward dated 30.11.2008 is
forged, bogus and concocted document. It is created with
ulterior motive to dethrone complainant from Chairmanship of
Trust and to remove from trust which the complainant has
nurtured since the year 2002, which is now blooming in its trust
activities. It is further submitted that previously on 28.03.2006,
the complainant tendered his resignation on the ground of ill-
health but it was not accepted and it was torn in presence of
other two trustees viz. Mr.Ajay Anil Goyal and Mr. Mohit Anil
Goyal. It is submitted that anyhow the petitioners managed to
obtain copy of said letter from trust office and perhaps they have
cut upper portion of the letter and made concocted resignation
letter and put stamp of inward letter dated 30.11.2008 and used
the same as resignation of complainant with mala fide intention.
It is also argued by learned advocate Mr.Mankad that
complainant and other trustees have not received agenda dated
08.12.2008 and it also not served to other trustees viz. Ajay
Goyal and Mohit Goyal and ultimately the petitioner who are in
mind of making Bhagwan Mahavir Education Foundation Trust
as their own family business to make it believe that trust has
accepted resignation of complainant and two other trustees and
succeeded in their nurture.
4.1. Learned advocate Mr. Mankad submits that presently
except directing police authority to investigate offence under
section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., no other order is passed against the
petitioners. He would submit that it is incorrect to say that
learned Trial Court after taking cognizance and postponing
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11431/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
issuance of process under section 202 of Cr.P.C. reversed back
clock, and send matter for investigation under section 156(3) of
Cr.P.C. The Court has never passed any order to register inquiry
under section 202 of Cr.P.C., Therefore, it is submitted that
argument of learned advocate Mr.Rao to that extent is
misconceived.
4.2. Learned advocate Mr.Mankad further submitted that in
given facts sometimes criminal and civil remedy are available in
diverse situation, therefore, he submits that merely some
proceedings under section 22 of the BPT Act is pending before
the Charity Commissioner, it would not come in the way of police
authority to investigate the offence whereby allegation of
cheating and forgery etc. are levelled against the petitioners, as
these allegations are running in separate sphere and different
space. Therefore, it is submitted that the petition may not be
entertained.
5. Learned APP adopting argument of learned advocate
Mr.Mankad would further submit that before this Court passed
order of no coercive steps against the petitioners on 20.03.2014
some investigation was carried out by Investigating Officer.
Referring to report of Investigating Officer on record, he would
submit that complainant claims that he has not signed
resignation letter and not received agenda of meeting and on the
other hand i.e. the petitioners assert that complainant has
tendered resignation on the ground of his ill health and now
claiming to continue as trustees. Learned APP submits that
since both the parties assert and deny certain facts, facts
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11431/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
become disputed. It is submitted that the Court while deciding
petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot adjudicate any
disputed question of facts. He referred to judgment of Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Dharambeer Kumar Singh v/s. State
of Jharkhand [(2025) 1 SCC 392] as well as in the case of
Kaptan Singh v/s. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2021) 9 SCC 35].
He would submit that in given facts of the case, if proceedings is
pending before Charity Commissioner it would not debar in filing
Criminal Complaint if it is alleged that accused have committed
forgery and cheating.
5.1. In view of above, it is submitted to dismiss the petition.
6. Regard had been to rival submission and paying anxious
consideration to the documents on record, perused relief claimed
in the petition. It seems that the petitioner challenges order
dated 26.06.2013 passed by learned Trial Court making over
investigation under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to the police
authority. It is discernible that private complaint has been filed
by the complainant before the learned CJM, Surat it was
registered as private complaint No.857 of 2011. Similarly,
complainant has also filed identical complaint before Umra
Police Station. However, Umra Police Station has not taken any
cognizance of written complaint despite it is disclosing
cognizance offence. Order dated 03.08.2011 (Page No.47) passed
by learned Court below indicates that learned Trial Court
exercised jurisdiction under section 210 of Cr.P.C. and called
progress in relation to the complaint filed before Umra Police
Station. Report tendered by Umra Police Station state that since
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11431/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
issue is seized with Charity Commissioner, no cognizance can be
taken. Ergo police closed its own hand till decision is arrived in
proceedings initiated upon changing report. Having taken report
on record, learned Trial Court, Surat on 21.06.2013 passed
order to hand over investigation under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.
and called report from police authority. Looking to this two
orders firstly dated 03.08.2011 (Page No.47) and secondly order
dated 21.06.2013 (Page No.56) respectively, it indicates that
learned Trial Court has not exercised power under section 202 of
Cr.P.C. and post-poned issuance of process and hand over
inquiry to police under section 202 (1) of Cr.P.C. ever. As
observed herein-above, learned Trial Court on 03.08.2011 in
private complaint passed order in exercise of jurisdiction only
under section 210 of Cr.P.C.. Thus, it cannot be said that
learned Trial Court has taken cognizance of complaint on
03.08.2011. Such order does not debar learned Trial Court to
exercise jurisdiction under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to register
FIR under section 154 of Cr.P.C. Conjoint reading of section 154,
156, 190 and 200 as well as 202 of Cr.P.C. makes it abundantly
clear that Court having obtained report from police in separate
application given to the police can exercise power under section
156(3) of Cr.P.C. to send complaint for investigation under
section 156(3) to police authority. Ergo argument that Court has
taken cognizance under section 202 of Cr.P.C. therefore, is
baseless, pointless and completely misconceived.
7. Another argument canvassed to the extent that learned
Trial Court has passed cryptic order dated 21.06.2013
(Annexure F) to send complaint for investigation under section
156(3) of Cr.P.C. It is also argued that learned Trial Court has
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11431/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
not applied its mind. In the case of Anil Kumar and Ors. v/s.
M.K.Aiyappa and Anr. [(2013) 10 SCC 705], issue came before
the Hon'ble Apex Court to consider scope of section 156(3) of
Cr.P.C. It was held that what weighed with learned Trial Court to
order investigation under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. should be
reflected in the order, though a detailed expression of his views
is neither required nor warranted. In the present case, Court
below has passed order (Annexure F) it reflects that Court below
has applied its mind for sending investigation under section
156(3) of Cr.P.C. Para 11 of the said judgment reads as under :-
"11. The scope of the above mentioned provision came up
for consideration before this Court in several cases. This
Court in Maksud Saiyed case (supra) examined the
requirement of the application of mind by the Magistrate
before exercising jurisdiction under Section 156(3) and held
that where a jurisdiction is exercised on a complaint filed in
terms of Section 156(3) or Section 200 Cr.P.C., the
Magistrate is required to apply his mind, in such a case, the
Special Judge/Magistrate cannot refer the matter under
Section 156(3) against a public servant without a valid
sanction order. The application of mind by the Magistrate
should be reflected in the order. The mere statement that he
has gone through the complaint, documents and heard the
complainant, as such, as reflected in the order, will not be
sufficient. After going through the complaint, documents and
hearing the complainant, what weighed with the Magistrate
to order investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., should be
reflected in the order, though a detailed expression of his
views is neither required nor warranted. We have already
extracted the order passed by the learned Special Judge
which, in our view, has stated no reasons for ordering
investigation."
8. If we consider rival contentions, on one hand, complainant
claims that he has not signed resignation letter dated
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11431/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
30.11.2018, his signature on resignation letter was forged and
concocted and made taking aid of previous resignation letter
dated 28.03.2006. On the other hand, petitioners asserts that
resignation letter dated 30.11.2008 is that of complainant, to
justify his stand, report of private handwriting expert report
(Annexure G) was obtained. Thus it is matter where rival parties
are disputing signature on resignation letter dated 30.11.2008.
Investigation is yet at nascent stage. Detail allegations were
made in private complaint by the complainant against accused.
Argument was also canvassed that attempt was made by the
petitioners to grab Bhagwan Mahavir Education Foundation
Trust by removing founder Chairman and two other members
viz. Ajay Goyal and Mohit Goyal. In this context, according to
this Court, learned Trial Court has rightly handed over
investigation to police under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C..
9. At initial stage, where cognizable offence is disclosed in
FIR, whether investigation can be thwart by exercising inherent
power under section 482 of Cr.P.C., the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Ltd. v/ s.
State of Uttar Pradesh [2020 SCC Online SC 958], in para 41
has held as under :-
"41. It is needless to point out that ever since the decision of
the Privy Council in King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmed
AIR 1945 PC 18, the law is well settled that Courts would
not thwart any investigation. It is only in cases where no
cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the
first information report that the Court will not permit an
investigation to go on. As cautioned by this Court in State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the power of
quashing should be exercised very sparingly and with
circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. While
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11431/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
examining a complaint, the 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
or in the complaint. In S.M. Datta v. State of Gujarat (2001) 7
SCC 659 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."
10. In the case of Mahendra K.C. v/s. State of Karnataka
[(2022) 2 SCC 129], Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under :-
"16..... the test to be applied is wither the allegations in the
complaint, as they stand, without adding or detracting from
the complaint, prima facie establish the ingredients of the
offence alleged. At this stage, the High Court cannot test the
veracity of the allegations, nor, for that matter, can it
proceed in the manner that a judge conducting a trial would,
based on the evidence collected during the course of trial."
11. In Ajay Malik v. State of Uttarakhand, 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 185, the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the position
of law for quashing the FIR as under:-
"8. It is well established that a High Court, in exercising
its extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the CrPC,
may issue orders to prevent the abuse of court processes
or to secure the ends of justice. These inherent powers
are neither controlled nor limited by any other statutory
provision. However, given the broad and profound nature
of this authority, the High Court must exercise it
sparingly. The conditions for invoking such powers are
embedded within Section 482 of the CrPC itself, allowing
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11431/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
the High Court to act only in cases of clear abuse of
process or where intervention is essential to uphold the
ends of justice.
9. It is in this backdrop that this Court, over the course of
several decades, has laid down the principles and
guidelines that High Courts must follow before quashing
criminal proceedings at the threshold, thereby pre-
empting the Prosecution from building its case before the
Trial Court. The grounds for quashing, inter alia,
contemplate the following situations : (i) the criminal
complaint has been filed with mala fides; (ii) the FIR
represents an abuse of the legal process; (iii) no prima
facie offence is made out; (iv) the dispute is civil in nature;
(v.) the complaint contains vague and omnibus
allegations; and (vi) the parties are willing to settle and
compound the dispute amicably (State of Haryana v.
Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335)."
12. In view of above, the Court cannot add or subtract
anything from complaint to believe that complaint is false or
frivolous. The Court at the time of deciding quashing petition
under section 482 of Cr.P.C. is prevented from deciding veracity
of the allegations, if allegations levelled in the FIR on its face
taking on entirety do not constitute any offence or make out case
against accused, only then the Court can quash the FIR.
13. One of the argument was also canvassed to consider report
of private handwriting expert obtained by the petitioners to
contend that signature on resignation letter is genuine. I am not
impressed by this submission. This Court cannot hold mini-trial
at this stage. If it is genuine, it could be helpful in defence, it
cannot taken for consideration at this stage. In the case of
Supriya Jain v/s. State of Haryana [(2023) 7 SCC 711], the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11431/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
Hon'ble Apex Court held as under :-
"13. All these documents which the petitioner seeks to rely
on, if genuine, could be helpful for her defence at the trial,
but the same are not material at the stage of deciding
whether quashing as prayed for by her before the High
Court was warranted or not. We therefore, see no reason to
place any reliance on these three documents."
14. Lastly, it was argued that civil dispute has been given color
of criminality. In the case on hand, so far as civil dispute is
concerned, it is in regard to acceptance of change report under
section 22 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, which is pending
before Charity Commissioner. However, complainant has levelled
allegations that signature on resignation letter is concocted and
forged. In diverse situation, two remedy may arise, such
circumstances has been thoroughly examined by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Medchl Chemical and Pharma Pvt.
Ltd. v/s. Biological E. Limited [2000 (3) SCC 269]. Hon'ble
Apex Court after referring slew of earlier authorities held that
criminal and civil remedy can be perused in diverse situation.
15. Applying ratio aforesaid to the facts of the present case,
this Court is not inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the
petitioners.
16. Worthful reference can be taken from the case of State of
Haryana Vs. B.Bhajanlal & ors., AIR 1992 SC 604, where note
of caution has been spelt by Hon'ble Apex Court saying that
power to quash FIR should be exercised sparingly. Relevant para
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11431/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
is extracted as below :-
"103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the
power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be
exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and
that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not
be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the
reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations
made in the FIR or the complaint and that the
extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an
arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its
whim or caprice."
17. For the foregoing reasons, the petition fails, deserves to be
dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
Interim relief granted earlier, if any, stands vacated.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SATISH
