[Cites 16, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Nurrudinali Hasanali Lalani vs Rahulbhai Ishakbhai Shora on 30 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/983/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 983 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================================
NURRUDINALI HASANALI LALANI
Versus
RAHULBHAI ISHAKBHAI SHORA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HARSHIL C DATTANI(6241) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR M R SAIYED(3362) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 30/04/2026
JUDGMENT
[1.0] Though learned advocate for the applicant is on leave note, in view
of directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay
Kumar & Ors vs. The State of Rajasthan rendered in Special Leave
Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 71965/2025 dated 08.01.2026 as well as in
view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Taj
Mohammad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, decided on 11.08.2023 in
Criminal Appeal No.2421 of 2023, this Court has considered the
averments made in the application as well as the material placed on
record and has proceeded to decide the matter in absence of the
applicant or learned advocate for the applicant based on available
material on record.
[2.0] By way of present revision application under Section 397 read with
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/983/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "CrPC"),
the applicant has prayed for quashing and setting aside of the order
dated 27.10.2016 passed below Exh.8 by the learned Special Judge
(POCSO), at Dhoraji in Special Case (POCSO) No.19/2016 and to allow the
application Exh.8 which was filed under Section 227 of the CrPC seeking
discharge.
[3.0] Perusing the record and the memo or revision application, it
appears that the respondent No.1 herein filed an FIR being I-CR
No.5/2016 with Bhayavadar Police Station, Rajkot for the offence
punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(for short "IPC") against one Rahim @ Raju Juneja pursuant to which
investigating agency conducted the investigation and filed charge-sheet
against total 5 persons including the present applicant, who is arraigned
as accused No.4 for the offence under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(N), 465,
212 and 114 of the IPC and sections 6, 8 and 12 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act. The allegation is that the present
applicant rendered his services as an Advocate and had given an advise to
get register the marriage and at the instance of present applicant,
accused No.5 went to Thodi Gram Panchayat and got registered the
marriage on 24.01.2016 and it is alleged that the said marriage certificate
is forged one.
[4.0] Perusing the allegations levelled against the applicant, prima facie,
it appears that present applicant rendered his professional services and
had given advise to get register the marriage and except this no any role
is attributed to the present applicant qua forging of marriage certificate
and there is not an iota of material or evidence to show the involvement
of the present applicant and therefore, offence under Section 465 of the
IPC is not made out against the present applicant even in aid of sections
8 or 12 of the POCSO Act. Therefore, the learned Special Judge has
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/983/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
committed an error in dismissing the discharge application Exh.8 of the
present applicant.
[5.0] Further, the concept of discharge in criminal jurisprudence
operates as a constitutional safeguard, ensuring that no individual is
compelled to undergo the burdens of a criminal trial unless the
prosecution first meets the minimal judicially-recognisable threshold of a
prima facie case. Considering the concept of fair trial and safeguard
provided under the Code reveals through investigation papers that no
prima facie offence is made out and once offence is not made out and
charge levelled against the applicant - accused is found groundless, in
that event, it is the duty of the Court to see to it that the applicant is not
put to any harassment and such trial is nothing but sheer wastage of
judicial time and it is unjust to continue the prosecution against such an
accused.
[6.0] In wake of aforesaid conspectus, present revision application is
allowed. Impugned order dated 27.10.2016 passed below Exh.8 by the
learned Special Judge (POCSO), at Dhoraji in Special Case (POCSO)
No.19/2016 and to allow the application Exh.8 is hereby quashed and set
aside qua the present applicant - NURRUDINALI HASANALI LALANI and
application Exh.8 filed by the applicant is hereby allowed and the
applicant herein is discharged from the charges for the offences
punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(N), 465, 212 and 114 of the
IPC and sections 6, 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Record &
Proceedings, if any, be returned back to the concerned Court. Direct
service is permitted.
Sd/-
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.)
Ajay
