Akshaykumar Dahyabhai Chaudhary vs State Of Gujarat
2026 Latest Caselaw 2509 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Akshaykumar Dahyabhai Chaudhary vs State Of Gujarat on 20 April, 2026

                                                                                                               NEUTRAL CITATION




                              R/CR.MA/4155/2026                                  ORDER DATED: 20/04/2026

                                                                                                               undefined




                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                           R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
                                         FIR/ORDER) NO. 4155 of 2026

                        ========================================================
                                               AKSHAYKUMAR DAHYABHAI CHAUDHARY
                                                              Versus
                                                     STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
                        ========================================================
                        Appearance:
                        PARTY IN PERSON(5000) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
                        MR.ADITYA JADEJA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                        ========================================================

                           CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO

                                                         Date : 20/04/2026

                                                        ORAL JUDGMENT

1. By way of the present application, the applicant

party-in-person has prayed as follows :

(A) Quash and set aside the FIR being C.R.No.11191046230241/2023 registered in June 2023 with Airport Police Station, Ahmedabad City, along with the charge sheet filed pursuant thereto, and all consequential proceedings against therefrom, including Criminal Case No. CC/118351/2023 presently pending and being tried before the Court of 5th - 4th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ahmedabad City, in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

(B) Hold and declare that the continuation of the impugned criminal procedure against the petitioner ins manifestly illegal, amount of abuse of the process of law, and violates the petitioner's fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

(C) Grant interim and / or ad-interim relief, pending final disposal of the present application, by staying further

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/4155/2026 ORDER DATED: 20/04/2026

undefined

proceedings arising out of and pursuant to the impugned FIR and charge-sheet including trial proceedings, if any.

(D) Pass any other and further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, proper and justice in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice;

(E) Clarify that the quashing of the impugned proceedings shall be without prejudice to the petitioner's right to pursue appropriate civil remedies, including claims for damages arising out of illegal arrest, malicious prosecution and abuse of authority, in independent proceedings, in accordance with law."

2. The relevant facts leading to filing of the present

application are as under:

2.1. The complainant Bharatkumar Chimanbhai Dodiya,

Constable, CISF No.084840024, has filed the complaint mainly

stating that on 09.06.2023, from about 21:40 hours to 10.06.2023

at 06:00 hours, he was on duty at the Staff Gate of Terminal-2 at

Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport and his duty was

to check the passes of airport staff and allow them entry into the

airport and to ensure that no passenger exits the airport

premises without permission of the airline staff. During the said

duty, on 09.06.2023 at about 21:40 hours, one passenger

approached him and stated that he wanted to go outside of the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/4155/2026 ORDER DATED: 20/04/2026

undefined

airport and he told the passenger that since no airline staff was

accompanying him, he would not allow him to exit and if he

wished to go out, he should bring the concerned airline staff

along with him. The said passenger left and returned after about

10-15 minutes stating that the airline staff had shown

unwillingness to accompany him. The complainant once again

informed the passenger that without the airline staff, he would

not be allowed to exit. The complainant called the URT Staff

Constable P. Mahesh via walkie-talkie, who came to the spot.

They took the passenger to the Singapore Airlines checking

counter to verify his ticket and upon checking, the ticket in

possession of the passenger showed PNR No. 6LOAAN,

passenger name as Mr. AKSHAYKUMAR CHAU(A), flight No. SQ

505, departing on Fri, 9 June 2023 at 22:50 hours. However, upon

verification in the airline system, the same PNR No. 6LOAAN

reflected the passenger name as CHAUDHARI ABHAYKUMAR

MR flight No. SQ 505, departing on Fri, 9 June 2023 at 22:50

hours and it was informed that the said passenger had already

reached the boarding gate. No booking was found in the name

of Akshaykumar Chaudhari. The airline staff informed them that

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/4155/2026 ORDER DATED: 20/04/2026

undefined

the ticket in possession of the passenger was forged. Thereafter,

Constable P. Mahesh checked the passport of the passenger,

which bore Passport No. M0748371 in the name of Chaudhari

Akshaykumar Dahyabhai, residing at Plot No. 104/1, Sector-21,

Kishannagar, Gandhinagar. On further inquiry by CISF

Inspector Ms. Amita Kumari, the passenger disclosed that the

PNR in question was originally booked in the name of his

relative brother, Abhay Jashubhai Chaudhari, resident of village

Bakarpur, Chipriwas, Taluka Visnagar, District Mehsana. He

further stated that he had come to drop his brother at the airport

and in order to gain entry inside the airport, he had edited his

brother's ticket and replaced his brother's name with his own,

thereby preparing a forged ticket. As per the instructions of the

superior officers, CISF Inspector Ms. Amita Kumari directed that

legal action be taken against the said passenger. Accordingly,

FIR being C.R. No. 11191046230241/2023 registered at Airport

Police Station, Ahmedabad City for the offences punishable

under Section 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC came to be filed

on 10.06.2023.

3. The applicant, who has appeared in-person, submits

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/4155/2026 ORDER DATED: 20/04/2026

undefined

that even if the entire prosecution case in the FIR and charge-

sheet is accepted as true, no offence under Sections 465, 467,

468 or 471 IPC is made out, as there is no material showing any

act of forgery, fabrication or use of a forged document by the

applicant. The case is based only on a photocopy of an alleged

airline ticket, which is not admissible in evidence in the absence

of the original document and compliance with the legal

requirements for secondary evidence, thereby undermining the

entire prosecution case. The applicant further submits that no

original forged document has been recovered or produced and

a photocopy by itself cannot constitute forgery. There is also no

proof that the applicant prepared, altered or authored the

alleged document as no handwriting analysis, specimen, or

scientific examination has been conducted. Further, no expert

or forensic opinion has been obtained to support the allegation

of tampering. The essential requirement of "use as genuine"

under Section 471 IPC is also not satisfied as there is no

evidence from any airline, CISF or airport authority that the

applicant ever used or attempted to use the alleged ticket. The

prosecution has failed to produce important evidence such as

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/4155/2026 ORDER DATED: 20/04/2026

undefined

airline records, CCTV footage and booking data, which raises

an adverse inference against it. The case is based only on

suspicion without any reliable or admissible evidence

connecting the applicant to the alleged offence. The prosecution

case suffers from serious defects including an arrest shown

before registration of the FIR and an unexplained delay in

sending the seized mobile phone for forensic examination,

which breaks the chain of custody and affects the reliability of

evidence. The applicant has suffered prejudice due to arrest

and other proceedings despite lack of evidence and

continuation of the case amounts to misuse of legal process and

violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. The prosecution story

is also contradictory and unreliable, and therefore, the

proceedings deserve to be quashed under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure.

4. Learned APP Mr.Aditya Jadeja for the respondent

no.1 - State opposes the application and submits that at the

stage of considering a petition under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure., the Court is not required to conduct a

detailed examination of evidence or assess its admissibility, but

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/4155/2026 ORDER DATED: 20/04/2026

undefined

only to see whether a prima-facie case is made out from the

material on record. It is contended that the FIR, charge-sheet

and accompanying material clearly indicate involvement of the

applicant in the alleged offence and the issues raised by the

applicant regarding absence of original documents,

admissibility of photocopy, lack of expert opinion or non-

production of certain evidence are all matters of trial which

cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned APP further submits that

the existence of a photocopy, coupled with other circumstantial

and oral evidence collected during investigation, is sufficient at

this stage to proceed against the applicant, and the veracity,

reliability and evidentiary value of such material can only be

tested during trial. It is also contended that the allegations

disclose the necessary ingredients of the offences alleged,

including intention and use, which can be established through

evidence led at trial. The alleged discrepancies, procedural

lapses, or contradictions pointed out by the applicant do not

demolish the prosecution case at the threshold and cannot be

grounds for quashing. It is therefore submitted that the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/4155/2026 ORDER DATED: 20/04/2026

undefined

application is devoid of merits and the prosecution deserves an

opportunity to prove its case in accordance with law, and hence,

the present application be rejected.

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Para - 23 of the

decision in the case of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt.

Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2021 (SC) 1918,

has observed as under :

"23. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, our final conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether the High Court would be justified in passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/or "no coercive steps to be adopted", during the pendency of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in what circumstances and whether the High Court would be justified in passing the order of not to arrest the accused or "no coercive steps to be adopted" during the investigation or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, our final conclusions are as under:

i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence;

ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences;

iii) 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;

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/4155/2026 ORDER DATED: 20/04/2026

undefined

iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the 'rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty).

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 rather than an ordinary rule;

viii) Ordinarily, the 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;

ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping;

x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;

xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice;

xii) The first information report is not an encyclopedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported.

6. Having heard the applicant appearing in person and

the learned APP, and upon perusal of the material on record,

this Court is of the view that the present case does not fall within

the limited scope for exercising inherent powers under Section

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/4155/2026 ORDER DATED: 20/04/2026

undefined

528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The

allegations in the FIR and the material collected during

investigation, prima facie, disclose the commission of

cognizable offences. According to the prosecution, the applicant

altered a ticket originally issued in the name of another person

by substituting his own name and used it for unauthorized entry

into the airport premises. The fact that the applicant was found

inside the airport prima-facie suggests that the applicant has

used the document that was forged to gain entry into the airport.

At this stage, such allegations cannot be said to be inherently

improbable or absurd so as to justify quashing of the

proceedings. The contentions raised by the applicant regarding

absence of the original document, inadmissibility of a

photocopy, lack of expert opinion, non-production of CCTV

footage or airline records, and alleged procedural lapses relate

to appreciation of evidence. In proceedings under Section 482

Cr.P.C., this Court cannot undertake a detailed examination of

the evidentiary value or admissibility of such material. Whether

the document is forged, whether the applicant prepared or used

it as genuine, and whether the prosecution has established the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/4155/2026 ORDER DATED: 20/04/2026

undefined

ingredients of the alleged offences are matters to be decided

during trial on the basis of evidence. In view of the law laid

down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeharika

Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra (Supra), the

power of quashing is to be exercised sparingly and only in

exceptional cases. The present case does not fall in a category

where no offence is disclosed or where continuation of

proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law.

Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the

impugned FIR and the consequent proceedings in exercise of

powers under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023.

7. The present application, being devoid of merit,

deserves to be rejected and is accordingly rejected.

(S. V. PINTO,J) F.S. KAZI