[Cites 13, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Shaileshgiri Mohangiri Meghnathi vs State Of Gujarat on 28 April, 2026

                                                                                                                    NEUTRAL CITATION




                           R/CR.MA/5981/2013                                        JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026

                                                                                                                     undefined




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                            R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE

                                                  FIR/ORDER) NO. 5981 of 2013

                                                                  With

                                      R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 6371 of 2013

                      FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                      HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
                      ==========================================================

                                   Approved for Reporting                          Yes           No
                                                                               ✔
                      ==========================================================
                                       SHAILESHGIRI MOHANGIRI MEGHNATHI & ORS.
                                                        Versus
                                               STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
                      ==========================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
                      MR DIPAL R RAVAIYA(6532) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
                      MR.RONAK RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                      ==========================================================
                        CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER

                                                          Date : 28/04/2026

                                                              JUDGMENT

1. The present application is filed for quashment of the FIR

being I-CR No.54 of 2013 registered with Keshod Police

Station.

2. As per the allegations of the complainant namely

Rajendrabhai S/o Tribhuvandas Gondhiya who is the

partner of unregistered firm being Raj Cinema having

three other partners namely Tribhuvandas Anandji

Gondhiya, Nirmalaben Tribhuvandas Gondhiya and

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/5981/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026

undefined

Jayesh Tribhuvandas Gondhiya. The complainant and the

partners wanted to cancel the license of Raj Cinema and

to develop the property. For the said purpose, the

complainant was in need of money and has approached

to the accused no.1, who was an advocate but practicing

in money lending business, without license. The

complainant conveyed his desire to get the finance and it

was conveyed by the accused no.1 that he would lend

amount of Rs.8,00,000/- out of which first Rs.6,00,000/-

was given and thereafter, Rs.2,00,000/- was given and

when Rs.6,00,000/- was lent the complainant has

executed Satakhat on 07.12.2011. At the time of lending

amount of Rs.2,00,000/- the accused no.1 had taken

original documents in the month of February, 2012. It

was subsequently conveyed that the amount of

Rs.8,00,000/- was given as an investment, as the accused

no.1 wanted to invest in the partnership firm of the

complainant. It was conveyed that at present he gave

amount of Rs.8,00,000/- and on cancellation of license of

Raj Cinema, he would further invest the amount. It was

further conveyed that only for security purpose this

Satakhat is executed.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/5981/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026

undefined

2.1. The license of Raj Cinema came to be canceled on

31.03.2012 and it was conveyed to the accused no.1 to

invest further amount and to be the partner of the firm.

The accused no.1 has informed that he does not wish to

being partner of the partnership firm therefore, the

complainant has conveyed that whatever amount he

invested be taken back so that he could search for

another partner who would invest be amount. The said

aspect was conveyed in the month of August, 2012 and

accused no.1 has informed that as now the amount is to

be paid of Rs.21,00,000/- as same would be having

interest on the amount which was borrowed of

Rs.8,00,000/-. It is further conveyed by the complainant

that he does not have that much amount and thereafter

the accused no.1 conveyed to the complainant to meet

with accused no.4 and whatever amount the accused

no.1 and 2 would say he may give cheque so that

transaction with the accused no.1 with regard to

principal amount with interest would be calculated. The

complainant was in need of original documents therefore

he gave the 2 cheques of Rs.8,00,000/- to accused no. 2

and 2 cheques of Rs.8,00,000/- to accused no.3, who are

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/5981/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026

undefined

brothers. It is conveyed to the complainant that accused

no.4 has to execute the agreement with regard to three

flats which now would be executed with the complainant

which was also not done therefore, the complainant has

demanded cheque which was taken by the accused no.2

and 3 which was denied and the complainant was

threatened to face dire consequences. It is conveyed that

the accused no. 4 and 5 have taken the signature on the

promissory notes as well as signature on the different

documents. It is further alleged in the complaint that

one advertisement was published in the Sandesh

Newspaper on 28.02.2013 through advocate

Mr.K.B.Singhvi wherein on the basis of bogus Power of

Attorney the page no.2 was changed, 1/4th share was

transferred to accused no.3 who is the mother of the

accused no.1 and 2. With above allegations, the

impugned FIR is lodged, which is the subject matter of

challenge before this Court.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr.Ashish Dagli for the

applicants no.1, 2 and 3 as well as the learned advocate

Mr.Dipal Ravaiya for the complainant-respondent no.2

and learned APP Mr.Ronak Raval for the respondent-

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/5981/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026

undefined

State.

3.1. It is submitted advocate Mr.Ashish Dagli that on bare

reading of the FIR, it is clear that no role is attributed to

the present applicant who are arraigned as accused

no.1, 2 and 3 and the dispute which is narrated in the

FIR appears to be civil in nature. It is contented by

learned advocate Mr.Ashish Dagli that the applicant

admits that that he entered into the agreement to sale

with applicant no.1 and thereafter, he had given Power

of Attorney of the managing the affairs of the property to

applicant no.2. As per the allegations made in the FIR,

page no.2 of the said Power of Attorney was changed

however, even if that would be considered as a Gospel

Truth nothing turns on the contents of page no.2. It is

submitted by learned advocate that the applicant no.3

entered into valid sale deed with applicant no.2 as Power

of Attorney of the complainant and also paid

corresponding stamp duty. It is submitted by learned

advocate Mr.Ashish Dagli that the applicant no.1 has

also executed an agreement documenting the payment

of money as well as handing over the possession to the

applicant no.1. The entire chain of events clearly

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/5981/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026

undefined

highlights that applicants are bonafide purchaser in the

value of 1/4th share of the property in question wherein,

applicant no.1 is stated to be confirming party. It is

submitted by learned advocate Mr.Ashish Dagli the

documents which is alleged to have been positive was

executed in the year 2011 however, the FIR came to be

lodged in the month of April 2013. It is submitted that

the impugned FIR which is delayed for more than one

year without offering any explanation is nothing but an

after thought with a view to extort more money from the

applicants. It is submitted by learned advocate

Mr.Ashish Dagli that the complainant and did not deny

the power of attorney except vague allegations of page

no.2 being changed. The dispute which is civil in nature

is given the colour of criminal after the delay of our 1

year and in that background impugned FIR is nothing

but abuse of process of law which is required to be

quashed.

3.2. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Ravaiya, appearing

for the complainant, has submitted that on bare reading

of the FIR it clearly goes to show that applicants along

with other accused persons had hatched conspiracy and

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/5981/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026

undefined

forged Power of Attorney of complainant and using the

two same to be genuine executed registered sale deed in

favour of their mother-accused no.2. It is submitted by

learned advocate Mr.Ravaiya that applicants have been

involved in criminal activities and are facing many

offences of identical nature of land grabbing. It is

submitted by learned advocate Mr.Ravaiya that on

perusal of the Power of Attorney, which is forged, prima

facie reflects that page no.2 is changed and signature

made in the bottom is also forged. It is submitted that on

every page, except page no.2, there is date/ seal put by

the notary however, only on page no.2, which is

subsequently changed, the said date/ seal does not

reflect. It is submitted by learned advocate Mr.Ravaiya

that page no.3 of Power of Attorney suggests that

accused Mohangiri Meghnathi is not required to make

any transaction with regard to consideration as well as

possession of the property in question. This fact clearly

shows that Power of Attorney, which was executed for

the purpose of security, was subsequently used by

changing the page no.2 and by adding the clause with

regard to giving powers to transfer the property. It is

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/5981/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026

undefined

submitted that as investigation is at large and

considering the history of the applicants, the

investigation is required to be concluded so that, truth

can surface on record.

3.3. Learned APP Mr.Ronak Raval, in support of the

submission of learned advocate for the complainant,

submits that the statement recorded during the course

of investigation supports the allegation of the present

complainant. It is submitted that during the course of

investigation it comes on record that the present

applicants are doing the business of money lending

without having any license. To verify genuineness of

Power of Attorney specimen were taken and the

Investigating Officer is intended to send the same before

the hand writing expert to compare the signature with

page no.2 of the Power of Attorney. It is submitted that

there are five different offences registered against the

applicant no.1, in that background, no interference is

required at this stage and the application is required to

be dismissed.

4. Having considered the submissions made by the learned

advocates for the respective parties and on referring the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/5981/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026

undefined

allegations made in the FIR, wherein, the sum and

substance of the allegations reflects that the

complainant was in need of money and after lending the

amount of Rs.8,00,000/- the applicant has taken the

original sale deed of the property and has executed

Satakhat under the guise of security. As per the

allegations, number of other documents including Power

of Attorney was also signed by the present applicant.

4.1. On referring the said document, which is part of the

memo of petition, it suggest that Satakhat without

possession was executed between the applicant namely

Shaileshgiri Mohangiri Aparnathi and complainant, who

is the partner of Raj Cinema. On referring the Satakhat,

emerges that the complainant has executed Satakhat for

the consideration of Rs.15,00,000/- for his 1/4th share of

the partnership property. He admits that payment of

Rs.8,00,000/- is received and on payment of amount of

Rs.7,00,000/- sale deed has to be executed. The said

Satakhat is dated 07.12.2011 and was registered before

the Sub-register. Another document namely amended

Satakhat was executed as there was a mistake in

referring the name of the applicant no.1 and instead of

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/5981/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026

undefined

mentioning Shaileshgiri Mohangiri Meghnathi it was

referred as Shaileshgiri Mohangiri Aparnathi. The said

amendment Satakhat was registered on 08.12.2011. The

Power of Attorney was notarized on the same day i.e

08.12.2011 giving powers to Mohangiri Harigiri

Meghnathi and Nishantgiri Mohangiri Meghnathi who is

accused no.2. On referring the Power of Attorney, it is

alleged that page no.2 is changed. To ascertain the said

fact, it would be beneficial to reproduce the page 2 and

3, which is as under:

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/5981/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026

undefined

4.2. It emerges that except on page 2 of each page there is

a stamp of the notary with date/ seal whereas, on page 2

only the stamp of the notary is there and on verifying the

signature which is on page 2 as well as on the remaining

pages, it emerges that there is a visible difference on the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/5981/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026

undefined

said signature.

5. Now, to ascertain whether on changing the page no.2

anything turns out on the same, it appears that on page

no.2 there is a paragraph no.2 wherein, powers were

given with regard to selling of the property to register

document, to make a signature and to get the permission

from government or semi government authorities. On

the next page, wherein the signature is not be disputed

it says that through this Power of Attorney there is no

exchange of sale consideration nor any possession was

given. Again in para 3, the reference of purpose of giving

the powers is mentioned i.e to engage an advocate, to

initiate any court proceeding etc. It is doubtful that the

purpose of giving Power of Attorney why it is referred in

two paragraphs wherein, the previous page all the

powers with regard to sale given then again there is no

need to mention with regard to giving powers again for

the purpose of Court proceeding. Additionally, to

mention with regard to the purpose of Power of Attorney

for any non sale consideration also create doubt in the

mind. It is submitted that nothing turns even if the page

2 is accepted to have been changed. On referring the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/5981/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026

undefined

above Power of Attorney, in the opinion of this Court, no

powers for sale would get if the page no.2 is not

changed. At the same time, as per the allegations,

signature on other were also taken which were

subsequently considered as kabja sompni karar. On

referring the said document, which is dated 08.12.2011

it reflects that same date where Power of Attorney is

authorised and amended Satakhat was also executed

with the Registrar. When the Power of Attorney, is

referred, there is no possession given, the kabja sompani

which is of the same date i.e 08.12.2011 also appears to

have lost confidence, more particularly, when allegation

made of taking signature on other paper, which is not

made to understand him.

5.1. The Investigating Officer has submitted that during

the course of investigation the statement of witness

Uday Rupare, Sohil Memon were recorded to dispute the

signature in the Power of Attorney as a witness. It is

submitted by the Investigating Officer that they are

intending to send this Power of Attorney to the

handwriting experts.

6. At the stage, this Court has referred the decision of the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/5981/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026

undefined

Apex Court in the case of Sharla Bazliel Vs Baldev

Thakur and Ors. reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC

396 wherein, in an identical case this Court has

observed that once the Court was apprised that

investigation into the genuineness of the signatures on

the disputed/questioned documents was being

undertaken and the signatures were in the process of

being analysed by the SFSL, there was no reason

whatsoever for the High Court to have proceeded to

quash the FIR by exercising jurisdiction under Section

482 CrPC. The relevant paragraphs is reproduced

hereinbelow:

16. We may observe that where allegations of forgery are set out in the FIR and Investigating Agency has undertaken the exercise of getting the disputed documents examined through the handwriting expert, an order quashing the FIR without awaiting the outcome of the handwriting expert's report would be totally unjustified.

17. While deciding the quashing petitions, the learned Single Judge took note of the fact that the relevant documents had been taken into possession and had been sent to the SFSL for analysis. However, this vital aspect of the matter was completely glossed over by the learned Single Judge while quashing the FIR. Once the Court was apprised that investigation into the genuineness of the signatures on the disputed/questioned documents was being undertaken and the signatures were in the process of being analysed by the SFSL, there

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/5981/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026

undefined

was no reason whatsoever for the High Court to have proceeded to quash the FIR by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.

18. Resultantly, we are of the firm opinion that the High Court prematurely quashed and terminated the proceedings arising out of the FIR filed by the appellant-complainant despite clear allegations establishing the offences of fraud, falsification of documents, forgery and criminal breach of trust. Sofar as the observation made by the High Court that the appellant had earlier filed FIR against her own father is concerned, it may be noted that the said FIR was in relation to an entirely different allegation, namely that her father had attempted to usurp the property of her grandfather by fabricating his signatures.

19. The High Court relied on this Court's decision in Mir Nagvi Askari v. CBI, and observed that the prosecution is required to prove that the accused had forged the document by creating a false document.

20. We feel that the reliance placed by the High Court on the aforesaid judgment to quash the FIR, despite taking note of the fact that the Investigating Agency had sought the report of the handwriting expert, was wholly unjustified. The questioned documents having already been forwarded for examination, the proof of forgery would evidently depend upon the outcome of the comparison to be conducted by the handwriting expert. Thus, the aspects relating to the creation of false documents and the commission of forgery were still under investigation when the High Court prematurely proceeded to quash the FIR.

21. As a matter of fact, as per the specific averments made in the Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 2498 of 2025, filed on behalf of the State of Himachal Pradesh, the SFSL report has been received which concludes that the signatures on the questioned documents are

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/5981/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026

undefined

facsimile stamps i.e., not the handwritten signatures of the father of respondent No. 4 (appellant-complainant). Apparently, thus the investigation has resulted into credible evidence establishing that the documents on the strength whereof the properties were transferred in favour of the accused bore forged signatures of the appellant- complainant's father, namely, Dr. G.B. Bazliel.

22. We further find that the judgment in Mir Nagvi Askari (supra), relied upon by the High Court, was neither relevant nor applicable to the facts of the present case. Since the report of the handwriting expert had not yet been received, it was premature to record any finding on falsification of documents and forgery. In such circumstances, the prosecution of the accused persons could not have been stifled at the threshold by the exercise of powers under Sections 482 CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

23. A specific allegation was made by the appellant-complainant that deposits of her father's and mother's bank accounts were usurped by the accused by fraudulently posing as nominees. These allegations, prima facie, constitute the offence of fraud and criminal misappropriation. Hence, we are of the firm opinion that the allegations as set out in the FIR and the material collected by the Investigating Officer is amply sufficient to proceed against the accused, and it was not a case warranting the exercise of inherent powers of the High Court to quash the FIR.

24. As a consequence, we find it difficult to sustain the impugned judgment and final order dated 8th January, 2024, which is accordingly set aside.

6.1. Additionally it is pointed out that the applicants are

having past history. The details of the antecedents of

applicants are referred hereinbelow:

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/5981/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026

undefined

Applicants FIR No. Under section

1. Shaileshgiri I-C.R.No.132 of 2006 406, 465, 467, 471 of Mohangiri Meghnathi dated 19.5.2006. IPC

2.Mohangiri Harigiri Meghnathi

3. Shardaben W/o Mohangiri Harigiri Meghnathi

1. Shaileshgiri C.R.No.140 of 2006 406, 465, 467, 384 and Mohangiri Meghnathi dated 26.5.2006. 511 of IPC and

2.Mohangiri Harigiri Sections 5, 33 and 34 Meghnathi of the Prevention of

3. Shardaben W/o Money Laundering Act Mohangiri Harigiri Meghnathi Shaileshgiri Mohangiri I-C.R.No.148 406, 465, 467, 384 and Meghnathi of 2006 dated 511 of IPC and 10.6.2006. Sections 5, 33 and 34 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act Shaileshgiri Mohangiri I-C.R.No.199 of 2006 406, 465, 467, 384 and Meghnathi dated 14.8.2006. 511 of IPC and Sections 5, 33 and 34 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act Shaileshgiri Mohangiri I-C.R.No.203 of 2006 406, 465, 467, 384 and Meghnathi dated 21.8.2006. 511 of IPC and Sections 5, 33 and 34 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act

6.2. It is true that merely having antecedence would not

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/5981/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026

undefined

disentitle the applicants from quashment of FIR if no

cognizable case is made out however, the factual

background referred hereinabove along with the

criminal history of the applicant suggests that the

quashment of FIR would be very premature and

considering the allegations, the FIR is required to be

logically ended.

7. At this stage this Court refers in the case of Accamma

Sam Jacob vs The State of Karnataka & Anr.

reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 585 wherein, the

Apex Court has held as under:

"53. In such circumstances, the High Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction, should not travel beyond the allegations contained in the complaint and the material placed by the complainant by delving into the defences sought to be projected by the accused-respondents.

54. The facts in the case at hand manifest that the High Court proceeded to examine documents relied upon by the accused- respondents, including the sale deeds executed in their favour, and treated the same as determinative of the dispute and observed that the sale deeds must be cancelled and delivered up first, before the criminal law could be set into motion. Such an exercise was clearly beyond the permissible scope of scrutiny in a petition for quashing under Section 482 of CrPC. Consideration of defence material, including sale deeds or other title documents would necessarily involve adjudication on disputed questions of fact, which fall squarely

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/5981/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026

undefined

within the domain of investigation and, if necessary, trial. Any such exercise at the stage of Section 156(3) of CrPC would amount to conducting a mini-trial and would be wholly impermissible. Permitting such defence material to be weighed at the threshold would frustrate and defeat the very purpose of directing an investigation by the police.

55. This Court has, time and again, emphasised that criminal investigation ought not to be scuttled at the threshold except in cases where the complaint ex facie does not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence or where continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The power of the High Court under Section 482 of CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interdict investigation is to be exercised with great circumspection, bearing in mind the statutory duty of the investigating agency to inquire into cognizable offences. The said position has been eruditely explained by this Court in Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, wherein it was observed as under: -

"In a given case, there may be allegations of abuse of process of law by converting a civil dispute into a criminal dispute, only with a view to pressurise the accused. Similarly, in a given case the complaint itself on the face of it can be said to be barred by law. The allegations in the FIR/complaint may not at all disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. In such cases and in exceptional cases with circumspection, the High Court may stay the further investigation. However, at the same time, there may be genuine complaints/FIRs and the police/investigating agency has a statutory obligation/right/duty to enquire into the cognizable offences. Therefore, a balance has to be struck between the rights of the genuine complainants and the FIRs disclosing

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/5981/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026

undefined

commission of a cognizable offence and the statutory obligation/duty of the investigating agency to investigate into the cognizable offences on the one hand and those innocent persons against whom the criminal proceedings are initiated which may be in a given case abuse of process of law and the process. However, if the facts are hazy and the investigation has just begun, the High Court would be circumspect in exercising such powers and the High Court must permit the investigating agency to proceed further with the investigation in exercise of its statutory duty under the provisions of the Code." [Emphasis supplied]

Applying the aforesaid principles to the case at hand, it becomes evident that the High Court has transgressed the well-settled boundaries governing the exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC at the threshold stage. The order impugned before the High Court was one passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of CrPC, whereby the police were merely directed to register an FIR and to undertake investigation in accordance with law. At such a stage, the Court is only required to ascertain whether the allegations in the complaint disclose the commission of a cognizable offence warranting investigation.

56. In the facts and circumstances noted above, it was not at all justified for the High Court to have quashed proceedings merely on the ground that the dispute appeared to be civil in nature. It is well settled that the mere existence of a civil remedy does not by itself bar criminal proceedings where the allegations prima facie disclose commission of a cognizable offence. By entering into an evaluation of the dispute on merits and proceeding to quash the order directing investigation, the High Court effectively stifled the investigative process at its inception. Such an approach runs contrary to the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/5981/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026

undefined

principles consistently laid down by this Court.

57. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court clearly fell into error while quashing the proceedings at a stage when the Magistrate had merely directed registration of FIR and investigation under Section 156(3) of CrPC (Corresponding to Section 175(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023).

58. Accordingly, the common impugned judgment and order dated 28th September, 2016, passed by the High Court is set aside. The FIRs and the proceedings arising therefrom are revived and restored to the file of the concerned Police Station and/or Magistrate, for being proceeded in accordance with law."

8. Considering the overall circumstances in the opinion of

this Court, the investigation is not required to be

scuttled at the threshold, more particularly when, it

discloses the commission of cognizable offence and in

that background, it cannot be said that the continuation

of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law.

In that background, this application deserves to be

dismissed.

9. Resultantly, the present application is dismissed.

10. Learned advocate Mr.Jaypalsinh Vaghela, for learned

advocate Mr.Ashish Dagli, has requested for extension of

protection which is granted. However, considering the