[Cites 17, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Bhargrajsinh Raghurajsinh Jadeja vs State Of Gujarat on 20 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8431/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 8431 of 2026
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 8472 of 2026
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 8500 of 2026
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
yes
==========================================================
BHARGRAJSINH RAGHURAJSINH JADEJA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
LD. SR. ADV. MR. DEVANG VYAS WITH MR RUCHIT J VYAS(10687) for
MR RONAK RAVAL, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 20/04/2026
COMMON JUDGMENT
1 Since the issues raised in these applications are
similar, they are being decided by this common
judgment. The facts of Criminal Misc. Application
No.8472 of 2026 are taken for the purpose of
adjudication.
2 The present application has been filed seeking
quashment of the impugned FIRs registered with
Gondal City 'B' Division Police Station, Rajkot, being
C.R. Nos.11213094260216 of 2016,
11213015260251 of 2026 and 11213016260225 of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8431/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026
undefined
2026.
3 Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Devang Vyas,
assisted by learned advocate Mr. Ruchit Vyas, for the
applicants and learned APP Mr. Ronak Raval for the
respondent-State.
4 Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Vyas submits that the
impugned FIRs, having been lodged after
considerable delay, are nothing but an abuse of
process and amount to harassment of the applicant.
It is contended that the FIRs are vague in nature and
do not contain any specific allegations attributing a
definite role, overt act, or participation to the
applicant, but merely level general and omnibus
accusations, which do not satisfy the threshold
requirements for initiating criminal prosecution.
Referring to the FIR under challenge in Criminal Misc.
Application No.8431 of 2016, it is submitted that the
allegations therein indicate that the accused persons,
who are known to the complainant and reside in the
same locality, had entered into certain financial
transactions with the complainant over a period of
time. It is alleged that the complainant was induced
into such financial arrangements on the pretext of
business and personal dealings, pursuant to which
monies were advanced on multiple occasions. It is
further alleged that on 16.10.2024, the accused
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8431/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026
undefined
persons called the complainant, used abusive
language, extended threats of dire consequences,
and attempted to intimidate him so as to deter him
from demanding repayment of his dues. Learned
Senior Advocate Mr. Vyas submits that the delay in
lodging the FIR has been sought to be explained by
alleging that the applicant is a headstrong person
with criminal antecedents, however, such
explanation is untenable. According to the learned
senior advocate Mr. Vyas, the complainant claims
that due to fear and the alleged absconding of the
applicant, he lodged the FIR belatedly after gathering
courage. It is contended that such delayed and vague
allegations cannot form the basis of criminal
prosecution and, therefore, the impugned FIRs
deserve to be quashed.
4.1. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Vyas submits that,
so far as Criminal Misc. Application No.8472 of
2026 is concerned, the allegations pertain to land
bearing Survey No.1526 of 2002 situated at
Gondal City, admeasuring approximately 1500
square yards, which is claimed to be ancestral
property of the complainant's family, having
devolved upon his father and uncles. It is
submitted by the learned senior advocate Mr. Vyas
that the uncles of the complainant had sold their
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8431/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026
undefined
respective shares in the said property to one
Chandulal Bhagwanji Patel, and thereafter the
present applicant, along with accused No.2 - Imran
Jikarbhai Nursumar, purchased the said property.
On the strength of such purchase, it is alleged that
the applicants have asserted rights over the
property and have been pressurizing the
complainant and his family to vacate the same.
4.2. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Vyas submits that,
so far as Criminal Misc. Application No.8500 of
2026 is concerned, the FIR has been lodged by the
complainant, Dhanjibhai Ravjibhai Bhundiya, who
claims to be the owner of land bearing Survey
No.251 paiki Plot No.5 situated at village Khandav,
purchased by him in the year 2007. It is alleged
that in the year 2018, the applicant approached
the complainant with a proposal to purchase a
portion of the said land admeasuring
approximately 125 square meters for the purpose
of installing a mobile tower, for which a
consideration of Rs.50,000/- was agreed upon,
along with an assurance of providing employment
to one of the complainant's family members as a
security guard. It is further alleged that on
29.12.2018, the complainant was called to the
office of the Sub-Registrar for execution of an
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8431/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026
undefined
agreement to sell, where he was allegedly coerced
and threatened into stating that full consideration
had been received, despite the same not having
been paid. On raising objection, the complainant is
stated to have been assaulted and threatened with
dire consequences, including threats to life, and
under such pressure, he executed the agreement
to sell after allegedly receiving only Rs.40,000/-.
Learned Senior Advocate submits that all the
impugned FIRs have been registered at the same
police station within a short span of time, thereby
indicating a concerted attempt to harass the
applicant.
4.3. It is further submitted by the learned senior
advocate Mr. Vyas that, in respect of the FIR
challenged in Criminal Misc. Application No.8431 of
2026, this Court has granted protection to the
accused Dahyabhai, taking into consideration that
Regular Civil Suit No.97 of 2020 filed by the
complainant came to be dismissed in the year
2023. It is contended that the present FIRs have
been lodged after considerable delay and at the
instance of a person with an oblique motive to
falsely implicate the applicant. Learned senior
advocate Mr. Vyas further submits that merely
because the applicant has criminal antecedents,
relief under Section 482 of the Code or Article 226
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8431/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026
undefined
of the Constitution cannot be denied, as held by
the Apex Court in Mohammad Wajid and
Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
others, reported in 2023(0) AIJEL-SC-72172. In
view of the aforesaid, it is submitted that the
impugned FIRs have been filed out of personal
vendetta and constitute an abuse of the process of
law, and therefore deserve to be quashed.
5 Per contra, learned APP Mr. Raval submits that, apart
from the criminal antecedents of the applicant, the
call detail records collected during the course of
investigation indicate that there were telephonic
conversations between the applicant and the
complainant, and the recordings prima facie disclose
the use of threatening language. It is further
submitted by the learned APP Mr. Raval that the
investigation is still in progress and, therefore, at this
stage, no interference is warranted.
6 Having considered the submissions advanced by the
learned advocates for the respective parties, it would
be appropriate to refer to each of the FIRs lodged
against the present applicant.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8431/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026
undefined
FIR pertaining to Criminal Misc. Application No.841 of 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8431/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026
undefined
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8431/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026
undefined
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8431/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026
undefined
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8431/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026
undefined
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8431/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026
undefined
FIR pertaining to Criminal Misc. Application No.8472 of 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8431/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026
undefined
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8431/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026
undefined
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8431/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026
undefined
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8431/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026
undefined
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8431/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026
undefined
FIR pertaining to Criminal Misc. Application No.8500 of 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8431/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026
undefined
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8431/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026
undefined
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8431/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026
undefined
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8431/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026
undefined
7 This Court has perused the material collected during
the course of investigation, as produced by the
learned APP, including the call detail records
pertaining to the applicant and the complainant. It is
true that the FIRs have been lodged after a
considerable delay; however, the complainant has
offered an explanation to the effect that the applicant
is a headstrong individual with multiple criminal
antecedents, and that upon learning that the
applicant was absconding, he gathered the courage
to approach the authorities and lodge the FIR.
8 In order to ascertain the veracity of the aforesaid
explanation, this Court has examined the
antecedents of the present applicant, which are
reproduced hereinbelow:
Sr. Sections Date of Date of
FIR No. Stage
No. Alleged FIR Incident
109(1), 118(2),
117(2), 115(2),
308(4), 54 of
1 11213015260189 05.03.2026 04.03.2026 Pending
BNS and
Section 135 of
the GP Act
308(4), 329,
2 11213094260202 324, 352, 54 18.03.2026 10.11.2025 Pending
of BNS, 2023
308(4), 352,
3 11213094260216 54 of BNS, 22.03.2026 16.10.2024 Pending
308(4), 329(2),
23.03.2026
352, 351(3),
4 11213015260251 23.03.2026 (since last 4 Pending
54 of BNS,
years)
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8431/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026
undefined
Sr. Sections Date of Date of
FIR No. Stage
No. Alleged FIR Incident
386, 323, 504,
5 11213016260225 506(2) of IPC, 24.03.2026 29.12.2018 Pending
65AA, 116B
1121304260164
6 and 81 of the 2026 2026 Pending
of 2026
Prohibition Act
323, 504,
504(2), 143,
145, 147 of
With consent
7 08/2014 IPC and 2014 2014
Quashed
Section 25(1-
B) of the Arms
Act
506(2), 504,
114 of IPC Interim
and 3(1)(r), Relief / No
8 62/2019 2019 2019
3(2)(5-a) of Coercive
the Atrocities Steps
Act
323, 504,
506(2) under
9 59/2019 2019 2019 Pending
IPC and 135
of the GP Act
143, 147, 188,
269, 337, 427
11213015200806 Final
10 of IPC and 2020 2020
of 2020 Arguments
Section 135 of
the GP Act
Interim
447, 341, 427
11213015230448 Relief / No
11 and 117 of 2023 2023
of 2023 Coercive
IPC
Steps
9 It is well settled that merely on the ground of
multiple FIRs, interference under the inherent
jurisdiction cannot be declined in the absence of
material collected during the course of investigation.
However, the reliance placed by the learned Senior
Advocate Mr. Vyas on the decision in Mohammad
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8431/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026
undefined
Wajid and Another (supra) is misconceived in the
facts of the present case. In the said decision, the
Apex Court was dealing with a situation where the
investigation had already concluded and the
chargesheet did not disclose any material to
substantiate the allegations made in the FIR. The said
factual matrix is clearly distinguishable from the
present case, wherein the FIRs have been lodged
recently and the investigation is still at a nascent
stage. In such circumstances, it would be appropriate
to permit the Investigating Agency to carry out a full-
fledged investigation so as to unearth the truth and
bring the offenders to book, in furtherance of the
cause of justice.
10 This Court has referred the following decisions
rendered by the Apex Court:
10.1.This Court has referred the decision of the Apex
Court in the case of S.M.Datta vs. State of
Gujarat, reported in 2001 (7) SCC 659 wherein it is
held that the investigation of an offences within the
exclusive domain of the police department and not
the law courts. In the event of discloser of cognizable
offence, it is duty incumbent to investigate into
offence and bring the offender to books in order to
serve the cause of justice. In the absence of a proper
investigation in a case where an offence is disclosed,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8431/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026
undefined
the offender may succeed in escaping from the
consequences and the offender may go unpunished
to the detriment of the cause of justice and the
society at large. 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 and
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.
10.2.In the case of Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel
vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2018) 3 SCC
104, wherein the Apex Court has held that while
exercising powers under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, the High Court should not
interfere with the investigation if the FIR discloses
the prima facie commission of a cognizable
offence. It was further observed that the High
Court cannot assume the role of an investigating
agency or an appellate authority by examining
disputed questions of fact or appreciating the
evidence at the preliminary stage. Once the FIR
discloses a prima facie offence, the investigating
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8431/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026
undefined
agency must be permitted to carry out the
investigation in accordance with law, and the
Court should refrain from passing orders that
impede or stall the statutory powers of the police
to investigate the offence.
10.3.In the case of State Represented by the
Inspector of Police vs. M.Maridoss, reported in
2023(4) SCC 338 wherein it is held that while
exercising powers under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, the High Court should not
conduct a "mini-trial" or evaluate the evidence in
detail at the stage of quashing an FIR. The Court
observed that the Madras High Court had
prematurely quashed criminal proceedings under
Sections 124A, 153A, 504, 505(1)(b), and 505(2) of
the Indian Penal Code within four days of the FIR
being lodged, without giving investigating agency
the reasonable time to investigate.
10.4.In the case of Somjeet Mallick vs. State of
Jharkhand, reported in 2024 (10) SCC 527
wherein it is held that while considering the
petition for quashing under Section 482 Cr.PC, the
Court must examine the allegations in the FIR and
the materials collected during investigation at their
face value only to determine whether a prima facie
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8431/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026
undefined
case is made out. The Court has observed that the
correctness or truthfulness of the allegations
cannot be tested at the preliminary stage and if
the allegations disclose dishonest conduct or a
cognizable offence requires investigation, the High
Court should not quash the proceedings at the
threshold as doing so would obstruct a legitimate
investigation.
10.5.In the case of Rocky vs. State of Telangana,
reported in 2025 (0) JX (SC) 1486 wherein it is
held that inherent powers of the High Court under
Section 482 CrPC must be exercised sparingly and
only in exceptional cases. The Apex Court
emphasized that when the FIR and charge sheet
disclose prima facie commission of cognizable
offences, the High Court should not interfere at the
pre-trial stage or conducts a mini-trial, and routine
interim protections such as directions for "no
coercive steps" should not be granted as they
obstruct the statutory power of the police to
investigate offences. The Apex Court further held
that criminal proceedings should continue where
the allegations are not inherently improbable and
disclose the ingredients of an offence.
10.6.In the case of Pinakbhai Riddhibhai Desai vs.
State of Gujarat, reported in 2025 (0) JX (Guj.)
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8431/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026
undefined
1020, this Court laid down comprehensive
principles governing the exercise of the High
Court's inherent powers under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure and its jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
quashing FIRs. It was held that the police have a
statutory right as well as a duty to investigate
cognizable offences, and therefore the Courts
should ordinarily refrain from interfering at the
stage of investigation or from granting blanket
orders restraining the investigation. The Court
further observed that while considering a petition
seeking quashment of an FIR, the High Court is
only required to examine whether the allegations
made in the FIR prima facie disclose the
commission of a cognizable offence, without
assessing the truthfulness of the allegations or
conducting a mini-trial. It was also clarified that
the power to quash criminal proceedings is an
exceptional power, which must be exercised
sparingly and with great caution, and that routine
interference with criminal investigations would
amount to encroaching upon the statutory powers
of the investigating agency.
10.7.This Court has referred to the decision of the
Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8431/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026
undefined
reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein the
Apex Court has laid down the guidelines
governing the exercise of inherent powers under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
which are reproduced hereinbelow:
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the
various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter
XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court
in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the
extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent
powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have
extracted and reproduced above, we have given the
following categories of cases by way of illustration
wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent
abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure
the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay
down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently
channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae
and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases
wherein such power should be exercised.
(i) Where the allegations made in the first information
report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their
face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima
facie constitute any offence or make out a case against
the accused.
(ii) Where the allegations in the first information report
and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not
disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation
by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code
except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview
of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(iii) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the
FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8431/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026
undefined
of the same do not disclose the commission of any
offence and make out a case against the accused.
(iv) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(v) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint
are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of
which no prudent person can ever reach a just
conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused.
(vi) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any
of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act
(under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the
institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or
where there is a specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party.
(vii) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with mala fide and/or where the proceeding 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."
11 In addition to the aspect of delay, the conduct of the
applicant also requires consideration. It emerges that in
all three FIRs, the applicant is alleged to have purchased
disputed properties without obtaining possession thereof
and, despite claiming to have paid full consideration, did
not initiate any legal proceedings to secure possession.
Ordinarily, a prudent person, having paid the entire sale
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8431/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026
undefined
consideration and having been denied possession, would
promptly resort to appropriate legal remedies. However,
in the present cases, despite being aware of the disputed
nature of the properties, the applicant is stated to have
entered into such transactions. Coupled with the
antecedents of the applicant, it cannot be said that the
allegations are frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive, nor
can it be held that they do not prima facie disclose the
involvement of the applicant.
12 The inherent powers of this Court under section 482
cannot be exercised sparingly and only in cases where
FIR does not disclose any cognizable offence, the High
Court can interfere with the investigation. When the
material collected during the course of investigation
prima facie supports the allegations, investigation cannot
be interdicted at its threshold. In the considered opinion
of this Court, quashing of a complaint is an exception and
not the rule. The veracity or genuineness of the
allegations made in the FIR cannot be examined at this
stage and view of above the present application does not
merit consideration at this stage and the same deserves
to be dismissed.
13 Resultantly, the present applications stand dismissed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
M.M.MIRZA
