[Cites 22, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Sanjay @ Sanga Kalabhai Gojiya vs State Of Gujarat on 19 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/595/2022 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 595 of 2022
==========================================================
SANJAY @ SANGA KALABHAI GOJIYA & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR YOGESHKUMAR A RATANPARA(7260) for the Applicant(s) No.
1,10,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. ROHAN H. RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
Date : 19/01/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. Though served, none appeared for the respondent No.2 -
original complainant.
2. Rule is fixed forthwith. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor
waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent - State.
3. Heard the learned advocate Mr. Yogeshkumar A. Ratanpara
for the applicants.
4. By way of present application, the applicants prayed to quash
and set aside the impugned order dated 21.08.2021 passed below
Exhibit 18 in Sessions Case No.96 of 2019, pending before the
learned Principal Sessions Court, Junagadh, and to discharge the
applicants. However, the learned advocate for the applicants, at the
outset states that the trial has commenced and some witness have
also been examined.
5. It transpires from the impugned order that application Exhibit
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/595/2022 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026
undefined
18 is rejected mainly on the ground that other offences under
Sections 332 and 186 of the IPC are separate and distinct offences
which are not relatable to Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. and thus, the
bar of Section 195(1) of the Cr.P.C. would not operate in the present
case. The learned Trial Court has also observed the factual aspects of
the case in para 7, 8 and 9 of the impugned order, and thus, after
considering the judgment in the case of Goverdharkumar
Thakoredas Asrani v/s. State of Gujarat & others, reported in 2017
Law Suit (Gujarat) 438 has held that the bar under under Section
195(1) of the Cr.P.C. is not applicable on the facts of the case and
hence, rejected the application of discharge.
6. At the outset, it is required to note that the law with regards to
interference in an order of framing of charge / rejection of discharge
application is no more res integra. In this regard, it would be apt to
refer the judgment in the case of K.H.Kamaladini Vs. State reported
in 2025 SCC ONLINE SC 1176, wherein, in para 9, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held as under:-
"9. In this case, the appellant sought discharge. The
prayer for discharge was rejected by the Special Court.
Therefore, a revision application under Section 401 read
with Section 397 of the CrPC was preferred by the
Appellant. As far as the scope of hearing at the time of
framing of charge is concerned, the law is well settled.
Firstly, at this stage, the Court can examined only the
documents forming part of the charge-sheet and no other
material can be considered. Secondly, after considering
the material on record, the Court has to decide whether
or not there exists a sufficient ground for proceeding with
the trial against the Appellant. Thirdly, at this stage, the
Court cannot shift the evidence forming a part of the
charge-sheet with a view to separating the grain from the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/595/2022 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026
undefined
chaff. Fourthly, if the Court is of the view that the
evidence without cross examination or rebuttal shows
that the accused has not permitted any offence, then an
order of discharge must be passed. Lastly, if the evidence
adduced before the Court, creates a grave suspicion
against the accused the Court will not discharge the
accused."
7. On the anvil of the aforestated principle, if the impugned order
is tested, it is clearly transpires that the learned Trial Court has
committed no error whatsoever either on the facts or in law, which
requires interference at the hands of this Court, more particularly, in
view of the fact that the manner in which the entire incident which
has been taken place is recorded at para 7, 8 and 9 of the impugned
order, and the reasoning given by the learned Trial Court cannot be
said to be perverse or without considering the law operating in the
field of discharge, more particularly, the application of the bar under
Section 195 of the Cr.P.C., when the applicants are also charged
with other punishable offences viz. under Sections 307, 326, 325,
324, 323, 333, 427, 452, 504, 143, 147, 148, 149 and 120-B of the
IPC together with offences under Sections 186 and 332 of the IPC.
Under the circumstance, no case is made out for interference. More
particularly, when in the present case, the accused, prima-facie seem
to have committed offences, which are separate and distinct from
those as contained in Section 195 and it does not seem that such
offences form integral part falling within the ambit of Section 195.
8. This application, accordingly, fails and is, rejected. Rule is
discharged.
8.1. However, it is made clear that the contention with regard to the
applicability of Section 186 of the IPC if raised at the time of final
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/595/2022 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026
undefined
hearing before passing of the final judgment, the learned Trial Court
after giving opportunity to both, the accused as well as the
prosecution may decide the same in accordance with law.
(P. M. RAVAL, J)
NITIN MAKWANA
