[Cites 22, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Vasantbhai Haribhai Gajera vs State Of Gujarat on 11 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3317/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 3317 of 2026
With
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3319 of 2026
With
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3335 of 2026
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY SD/-
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
================================================================
VASANTBHAI HARIBHAI GAJERA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
================================================================
Appearances:
MR. MIHIR JOSHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR ARJUN M.
JOSHI(11247) FOR THE APPLICANT(S).
MR. I.H. SYED, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR. VISHRUT BHANDARI FOR
THE APPLICANT(S).
MR. R.S. SANJANWALA, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR. ANIQ KADARI
AND MR. ADIT SANJANWALA FOR THE APPLICANT(S).
MR. R.R. MARSHAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE AND MR. PRAKASH K. JANI,
SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH VIRAL K SHAH(5210) AND DR. SHAILESH R.
Patel(6044) FOR THE RESPONDENT(S) NO.2
MR. HARDIK DAVE, PP WITH H.K. PATEL, APP FOR THE
RESPONDENT(S) NO.1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
Date : 11/03/2026
COMMON JUDGMENT
1. Draft amendment is granted. Amendment be carried out forthwith.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3317/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026
undefined
2. By filing the present petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India read with Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, the petitioners herein have
prayed for the following reliefs: -
"A. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to admit and allow the
present Petition;
B. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the FIR
No.11210015260005 of 2026 registered with DCB Police Station, Surat
dated 22.02.2026 and all proceedings arising thereof.
C. During pendency and till final disposal of the present Petition,
this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the investigation in
connection with FIR No.11210015260005 of 2026 registered with DCB
Police Station, Surat dated 22.02.2026 and all proceedings arising
thereof.
AND/OR
During the pendency and till final disposal of the present Petition, this
Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct no coercive steps against the
Petitioners and extend the interim relief granted by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court vide order dated 26.02.2026 passed in SLP Crl. Diary No.10942
of 2026.
D. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass any other or further
orders as deemed fit and in the interest of justice."
3. The FIR being No.11210015260005 of 2026 came to be registered with
the DCB Police Station of Surat City on 21.02.2026 for the offences punishable
under Sections 409, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 386, 389, 120(B), 34 and 506(2)
of the IPC against the petitioners herein and the other accused persons. Being
aggrieved by the said FIR, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing
the present sets of petitions.
4. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Mihir Joshi appearing with learned
Advocate Mr. Arjun M. Joshi for petitioners. He submitted that the allegations
levelled against the petitioners in the FIR can be bifurcated in three segments.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3317/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026
undefined
Firstly, it is alleged that the petitioners have siphoned away the amount of
Rs.1,900/- crores by resorting to illegal means. The second allegation is that the
money which was siphoned away by the petitioners, was rooted back to the
company through Hongkong where one of the petitioners was residing and the
third set of allegations is that the signatures of the first informant, his wife and
his father were forged on certain documents. He further submitted that initially
the first informant had invested the amount of Rs.21,50,000/- in the company
and out of Five lakhs shares of the company, Two Lakhs Fifteen Thousand
shares were allotted to the first informant and his other family members. Thus,
at the relevant time, the first informant and his family members were holding
43% shares of the company. Thereafter, at regular intervals, the share capital of
the company was increased and resultantly, the numbers of shares had also
increased. In April 2010, 9,84,000 (Nine Lakhs Eighty-Four Thousand) shares
were allotted to one of the petitioners herein and the first informant very well
knew about the same and because of the subsequent allotment of shares which
was already in the knowledge of the first informant, the shareholding of the
first informant had gradually reduced from 43% to 6%. It is alleged in the FIR
that after the shareholding of the first informant was reduced to 6%, some
further allotment of shares was done in favour of one of the petitioners herein
and for the said purpose, the signatures of the first informant were allegedly
forged on certain documents by which the first informant was shown to have
been offered the shares in question which offer was renunciated by the first
informant. He submitted that the shareholding of the first informant was
substantially reduced from 43% to 6% under his own knowledge and if the
petitioners herein had any intention to cheat the first informant, it would have
been done when the shareholding of the first informant was reduced from 43%
to 6%. It is an admitted position on record; no such forgery had taken place at
the relevant time. As per the case of the prosecution, the alleged forgery had
taken place when the shareholding of the first informant was further reduced
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3317/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026
undefined
from 6% to 4%. The allegation levelled in the FIR as regards forgery of the
documents, is highly improbable as the petitioners herein were not likely to
derive any benefit by reducing the shareholding of the first informant from 6%
to 4%, and therefore, no intention to cheat the first informant could be
attributed to the petitioners. He further submitted that as alleged in the FIR, the
first informant was appointed as a director of the company in the year 2010 and
he had resigned from the post of director of the company in the year 2015.
However, the signature of the first informant was forged on the letter of
resignation. It is an admitted position on record that after 2015, the first
informant had not received any notice from the company for attending the
annual general meeting of the company nor did he receive any remuneration
from the company for being a director of the company. In that case, it was
incumbent upon the first informant to inquire with the company as to why was
he not receiving any remuneration from the company after 2015 as well as the
notices for attending annual general meeting of the company. The first
informant had never raised any query in this regard with the company. Had the
letter of resignation of the first informant been really forged, the first reaction
on the part of the first informant ought to have been questioning the company
for non-receipt of remuneration and the notices for the meetings of the
company. Since, no such questions were raised by the first informant, it
establishes that the first informant had accepted the fact that he had seized to be
the director of the company by virtue of his resignation. The allegation that the
signature of the first informant was forged on the letter of resignation, is
nothing but an afterthought. He further submitted that so far as the allegation as
regards siphoning the amount of Rs.1,900/- crores is concerned, it is nothing
but a creation of the imagination of the first informant as in the FIR itself, it has
been stated that he presumed that the said amount has been siphoned away. He
further submitted that the FIR in question also suffers from suppression of
material facts. As stated hereinabove, the shareholding of the first informant
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3317/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026
undefined
was reduced from 43% to 6% under the knowledge of the first informant and
he had also put his signatures on the documents relevant in that regard.
However, the said fact has been suppressed by the first informant in the FIR.
He further submitted that there is no genuine dispute existing between the
parties. The entire issue had been raised by the first informant with some
ulterior motive and to wreak vengeance against the petitioners. He further
submitted that the FIR impugned in the petitions also suffers from gross delay
and the said delay has not at all been explained by the first informant in the
FIR. As per his submissions, the allotment of shares to one of the petitioners
had started since the year 2010. If it was the case on the part of the first
informant that those allotments were made contrary to the provisions of
Companies Act or were made with ulterior motive, the first informant had a
remedy available to him under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act.
However, the first informant chose not to take recourse to those remedies.
Similarly, as per the case of prosecution itself, the signature of the first
informant was forged on the letter of resignation in the year 2015 and it is only
in the year 2022 that the first informant for the first time approached the Police
authority with a complaint. It is stated in the FIR that the first informant for the
first time came to know about these facts prior to lockdown. That means the
first informant had gained knowledge about these aspects approximately in the
earlier part of the year 2020. However, for the period of two years, he did
nothing for lodging the complaint. He also submitted that after approaching the
Police authorities for the first time in the year 2022, the impugned FIR came to
be lodged by the first informant in 2026. This timeline up to the lodgment of
the impugned FIR indicates that the impugned FIR has been lodged after a
gross unexplained delay which would indicate that the FIR is nothing but a
motivated afterthought. He further submitted that the present FIR is nothing but
an arm-twisting tactic employed by the first informant against the petitioners to
extort money from them. He further submitted that in an attempt to extort
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3317/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026
undefined
money from the petitioners, the first informant addressed a communication to
the bank of the company asking it to debit freeze the account of the company.
In the said communication, it is mentioned by the first informant that the
proceedings under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act have been
lodged by him against the company and those proceedings are pending before
the High Court. However, the reality is that no such proceedings have ever
been lodged by the first informant against the company. He further submitted
that the said communication also refers to a direction being issued by this Court
to the Police authorities to register FIR against the petitioners vide its order
dated 12.02.2026 passed in Special Criminal Application No.2024 of 2026. The
perusal of the order of this Court dated 12.02.2026, would make it clear that
this Court has not issued any such directions to the Police authorities. Thus, the
first informant has also taken recourse to false hood for wreaking vengeance
against the petitioners. The present FIR is nothing, but an attempt by the first
informant to exert pressure upon the petitioners for them to come to terms to
him. The present FIR is, therefore, nothing but a malicious attempt to extort
money from the petitioners and to exert pressure upon them for getting non-
existing dispute settled on his own terms. He, therefore, submitted to allow the
present petition and quash and set aside the impugned FIR. Learned Senior
Advocate has sought to rely upon the following judgment/s in support of his
submissions: -
i) Judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Dinesh
Gupta Versus State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2024) 11
Supreme Court Cases 758.
5. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. I.H. Syed appearing with learned
Advocate Mr. Vishrut Bhandari for one of the petitioners has adopted all the
arguments canvassed by the learned Senior Advocate Mr. Mihir Joshi. Those
arguments are not reproduced here for the sake of brevity. He additionally
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3317/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026
undefined
submitted that had the grievances of the first informant been genuine, he had
got the statutory remedies available to him to get those grievances redressed. If
it was the case on the part of the first informant that the letter of resignation by
which he was shown to have resigned from the post of director was forged, a
remedy available for getting his post of a director of the company restored, was
already available to him. Similarly, if he genuinely found the shareholding
pattern to be dubious, he had a remedy available under Sections 241 and 242 of
the Companies Act and the first informant was very much aware about the
same as he himself has mentioned about the proceedings under Sections 241
and 242 of the Companies Act in his communication to the bank of the
company. However, no such proceedings have ever been undertaken by the first
informant. He further submitted that the impugned FIR has been lodged in the
year 2026 for the alleged events which had taken place much prior to 2020. The
period of limitation for the first informant to take recourse to the statutory
remedies available to him had since expired, the FIR is nothing but an
ingenuine device to twist the arms of the petitioners. He further submitted that
as per the law, the information with regard to commission of a cognizable
offence, is to be given within a period of three years. In the present case, such
information has been given much later after expiry of period of three years. He
further submitted that so far as the aspect of allotment of shares is concerned,
the necessary returns in that regard had already been submitted by the company
to the Office of Registrar of Companies and once such returns are submitted,
they become public document and under those circumstances, it does not lie in
the mouth of the first informant that those share allotments were done in a
concealed and a clandestine manner. He further submitted that as stated in the
FIR, the petitioners had submitted an application to the Office of the
Commissioner of Police in 2022. If such an application was submitted by the
petitioners in 2022 to the Police authorities and if no action was taken on the
said application, the first informant had a remedy available to him in the form
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3317/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026
undefined
of submitting an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. before the learned
Magistrate. The first informant need not have waited for lodgment of the FIR
till 2026. However, no such application was ever submitted by the first
informant which raises doubt about the genuineness of the allegations levelled
in the FIR. He also submitted that it appears that after an application was
submitted by the first informant in 2022 to the Police authorities, the Police
authorities had undertaken a preliminary inquiry which went on for four long
years. As per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Lalita Kumari
Versus State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1, the preliminary
inquiry is permitted only for the period of first Seven days, and thereafter, no
such preliminary inquiry is permitted. He further submitted that the first
informant has sought to misuse the forums including this Hon'ble Court for his
ulterior motive. Lastly, he submitted that the impugned FIR is nothing, but an
abuse of process of law. He, therefore, submitted to allow the present petitions
and quash and set aside the impugned FIR. Learned Senior Advocate has
sought to rely upon the following judgments in support of his submissions: -
i) Judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Delhi
Race Club (1940) Limited And Others Versus State of Uttar
Pradesh And Another reported in (2024) 10 Supreme Court
Cases 690;
ii) Judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Anita
Malhotra Versus Apparel Export Promotional Council And
Another reported in (2012) 1 Supreme Court Cases 520 and,
iii) Judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of
Mohd. Wajid And Another Versus State of Uttar Pradesh
And Others reported in (2023) 20 Supreme Court Cases 219.
6. This Court has also heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. R.S. Sanjanwala
appearing for one of the petitioners. He also adopted the arguments canvassed
by the learned Senior Advocates Mr. Mihir Joshi and Mr. I.H. Syed. He
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3317/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026
undefined
submitted that it is alleged in the FIR that the petitioners herein are associated
with one Mehul Chokshi who is involved in the infamous large scale scam
associated with Punjab National Bank. However, the Securities Appellate
Tribunal at Mumbai has observed in its order dated 30.04.2025 that though the
petitioner Rakesh Gajera had business relationship with the company, the same
is not reasonably expected to allow him access to UPSI and hence, petitioner
Rakesh Gajera cannot be treated as connected person under Regulation 2(1)(g)
(i). This finding recorded by learned Tribunal makes it clear that there is no
association between petitioners and the said Mehul Chokshi. He further
submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioners in the impugned
FIR are not substantiated by any material and thus are nothing, but bald
allegations. He, therefore, submitted to allow the present petitions and quash
and set aside the impugned FIR. Learned Senior Advocate has sought to rely
upon the following judgments in support of his submissions: -
i) Judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of
Hasmukhlal D. Vora and Ors. Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu
reported in 2023 (243) AIC 190 and,
ii) Judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of
Chanchalpati Das Vs. The State of West Bengal and Ors.
reported in 2023 (247) IAC 235.
7. Learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Hardik Dave appearing for the
respondent - State has opposed the present petitions. He submitted that the first
informant had approached this Court by filing Special Criminal Application
No.2024 of 2026 praying for directions to the Police authorities to register the
FIR incorporating the facts and legal provisions as narrated by the first
informant. The said petition was disposed of by this Court after recording the
statement of learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the Police authorities
would register the FIR as stated by the first informant and they would invoke
the legal provisions as stated by the first informant. The said order was carried
by the petitioners to the Hon'ble Apex Court. However, the Hon'ble Apex
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3317/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026
undefined
Court declined to interfere with the order of this Court dated 12.02.2026. The
Hon'ble Apex Court has only granted liberty to the petitioners to file an
application for quashing of the FIR in question. The submissions sought to be
canvassed before this Court were already made before the Hon'ble Apex Court.
The Hon'ble Apex Court has kept it open for this Court to decide the
application filed by the petitioners for quashing of the FIR independently
without being influenced by the relief granted in favour of the petitioners. He
submitted that the major thrust of the arguments canvassed on behalf of the
petitioners, is on the impugned FIR being delayed. The second limb of the
arguments is that the first informant was having knowledge about everything
and despite the same, he had not taken any recourse to the remedies available
to him. It is the settled legal position that the FIR does not deserve to be
quashed only on the ground of it being delayed. He further submitted that so far
as the aspect of forgery is concerned, the original documents which were
received from the petitioners prior to lodgment of the FIR, were sent by the
Police authorities to the FSL, Gandhinagar for the purpose of obtaining an
opinion of the handwriting expert along with the sample handwriting of
petitioners herein. The FSL, Gandhinagar has, in turn, submitted its report to
the Investigating agency which opines that the signatures of the first informant,
his wife and his father on those documents were forged and those signatures
were forged by one of the petitioners Rakesh Gajera. It could be argued by the
other side that the opinion of the handwriting expert cannot be believed ex-
facie without any further scrutiny. The further scrutiny of the report of the
handwriting expert would take place during the trial. However, today as it
stands, it is prima-facie established that the signatures of the first informant and
his family members were forged on those documents. He further submitted that
in view of the fact that there is a report of handwriting expert available with
Investigating agency indicating forgery of the documents in question, the
aspect of delay in lodgment of the FIR would pale into insignificance. He
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3317/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026
undefined
submitted that the documents which are allegedly forged are in the nature of
attempting to increase the shareholding of the petitioners. By forging those
documents, a picture is created that before allotment of those shares to one of
the petitioners, the first informant and his family members were offered those
shares. However, they had shown their disinclination for allotment of those
shares. He submitted that learned Senior Advocates appearing for the
petitioners have conveniently brushed the aspect of forgery aside while making
their submissions. He further submitted that after the first informant had
submitted an application in the year 2022, the petitioners herein were
summoned by the Police authorities and they were asked to submit certain
documents. However, the petitioners herein did not turn up before the Police
authorities. It was subsequently that the petitioners submitted the original
documents before the Police authorities which were sent for examination to the
handwriting expert and after the receipt of the report of the handwriting expert
making out a case for forgery, the concerned Police Officer sought permission
from the higher officers to register the FIR. However, after receipt of the
necessary permission from the higher authority, the first informant upon being
called for lodgment of the FIR, did not remain present before the concerned
Police authorities and it was only in the month of February 2026 that he turned
up and the present FIR was lodged. The delay if at all caused in lodging the
FIR, has been sufficiently explained. He, therefore, submitted to dismiss the
petitions. Learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Hardik Dave has sought to rely upon
the following judgment in support of his submissions.
i) Judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Punit
Beriwala Versus State of NCT of Delhi and Others reported in 2025
SCC OnLine SC 983.
8. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. P.K. Jani appearing for the respondent -
complainant submitted that the learned Senior Advocates appearing for the
petitioners have mainly submitted about the dispute in the matter being of civil
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3317/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026
undefined
nature. He submitted that even if it is accepted for the sake of arguments that
the dispute involved in the matter is of a civil nature that does not mean that the
lodgment of the FIR is barred. He submitted that there would be cases which
may primarily appear to be of civil nature. However, the aspect of criminality
would also be involved in those civil disputes for which the FIR can very well
be lodged. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioners that the first
informant could have approached various other forums to ventilate his
grievance and get it redressed. It is also argued on behalf of the petitioners that
though the first informant was aware of all the aspects mentioned in the FIR,
no complaint was lodged by him and thus, the FIR has been delayed. He
submitted that the first informant though is a resident of Surat city, he
originally hails from Rajasthan who came to Surat for the purpose of business.
The petitioners before this Court are established businessmen and are also into
several other socio-political activities. Thus, they are influential persons. They
are expecting the first informant to move the machinery immediately after he
came to know about the aspects mentioned in the FIR. It was very difficult for
the first informant to take recourse to law against the petitioners who are
mightily influential. The first informant had approached the Police authorities
with a complaint in this regard in the year 2022, however the Police authorities
did nothing and lastly when the first informant suspected that the FIR would be
registered in a manner which would dilute the seriousness of the offence, he
had to approach this Court and it was only after the order of this Court dated
12.02.2026 that the impugned FIR was registered. He further submitted that by
raising technical objections about the FIR being delayed etc., the petitioners are
trying to hide the crime committed by them. He submitted that when he joined
the company in question, it was a Private Limited company and its control was
entirely in the hands of the petitioners herein. Gradually, the company had put
up constructions of shops and offices and the shops worth Rs.2.5/- crores each
were shown to have been sold for the meager amount of Rs.25/- lakhs and the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3317/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026
undefined
remaining amount was siphoned away by the petitioners. The series of such
transactions had taken place and thus, the petitioners had siphoned away a huge
amount of Rs.1,900/- crores. The said amount was routed to Hongkong to one
of the petitioners and through him, it was routed back to the company. Thus,
the entitlement of the first informant for allotment of shares and profits of the
company, is sought to be defeated by the petitioners. The petitioners herein are
the family members and they have acted in collusion with each other for
committing the present offence and when the question of raising the share
capital of the company came, they knew that those shares were required to be
offered to the first informant, his wife and his father. On as many as 14
occasions, their signatures were forged on the documents which purported the
first informant and his family members to have declined the offer. He further
submitted that the manner in which the inquiry was conducted by the Police
authorities after 2022, goes to show how mighty and influential the petitioners
herein are. He further submitted that the report of the FSL as regards the
handwriting on disputed documents, makes out a strong prima-facie case
against the petitioners for commission of the offence in question. He further
submitted that the offences alleged in the present FIR against the petitioners if
proved at the end of the trial, are punishable with either imprisonment for life
or with imprisonment for a period of 10 years which indicates the seriousness
of the offence alleged against the petitioners. He further submitted that having
regard to the punishment prescribed for the offences alleged against the
petitioners, the limitation of three years as prescribed under Section 468 of the
Cr.P.C., would not come into play. He further submitted that it is alleged by the
petitioners that the FIR is nothing, but an attempt of blackmail to the
petitioners. The said allegation is far from true as the material available on
record clearly shows a strong prima-facie case against the petitioners. He,
therefore, submitted to dismiss the present petitions. Learned Senor Advocate
has sought to rely upon the following judgments in support of his submissions.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3317/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026
undefined
i) Judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of
Yerram Vijay Kumar Versus State of Telangana with Rajeev
Kumar Agarwal Versus State of Telangana reported in 2026 (0)
AIJEL-SC 76439;
ii) Judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of
Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited versus State of
Maharashtra and Others reported in (2019) 19 Supreme Court
Cases 401 and,
iii) Judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of
Kathyayini Versus Sidharth P.S. Reddy and Others reported in
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1428.
9. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. R.R. Marshal appearing for the respondent
- complainant has also opposed the petitions. He submitted that whatever
arguments have been advanced on behalf of the petitioners before this Court,
are the defenses which would be available to them during the course of trial. At
this stage, this Court is required to consider as to whether prima-facie case is
made out against the petitioners or not and for that purpose, this Court cannot
consider the defense raised on behalf of the petitioners at this stage. He further
submitted that the report of the handwriting expert of the FSL, Gandhinagar
speaks volumes about the conduct on the part of the petitioners herein. He also
submitted that while considering the petition for quashing of FIR, this Court
cannot undertake a roving inquiry into the disputed questions of fact or record
findings on the merits of the allegations. He, therefore, submitted that the
petitions herein are devoid of any merits, and therefore, the same should be
dismissed. Learned Senior Advocate has sought to rely upon the following
judgment/s in support of his submissions: -
i) Judgment dated 08.01.2026 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
case of C.S. Prasad Versus C. Satyakumar And Others in
Criminal Appeal No.140 of 2026.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3317/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026
undefined
10. Heard learned Advocates for the parties and perused the record. The
impugned FIR has been lodged by the first informant against the petitioners. It
is the case of the first informant in the FIR against the petitioners that he came
into contact with the petitioners herein since 2007. He was made partner in the
company in the year 2010 and he was allotted 2,15,000 (Two Lakhs Fifteen
Thousand) shares. Thus, the shareholding of the first informant was 43% at the
relevant time. Thereafter, the company had purchased several parcels of land in
Surat City and the shops and offices were constructed on those parcels of land
which were named as Millennium II and Millennium IV. The first informant
was made director of a company in 2009 and petitioner Ashok Gajera was also
made director of a company in the month of October 2010. Similarly, the other
co-accused viz. Bakul Gajera was also made director in the company in the
year 2016. The headquarter was changed from Surat to Mumbai without
intimation to the first informant. It is further stated in the FIR that prior to lock-
down, the first informant came to know that the petitioners herein had given the
shops mentioned hereinabove on rent and the income of rent derived from
those shops, was not deposited in the company, but the same was siphoned
away. It was also noticed that the large number of shops were sold by executing
sale deeds mentioning the amount of consideration equal to Jantri rate.
However, the actual consideration received by the company for the purpose of
sale of those shops, was as per the market rate. Thus, the sale deeds which were
executed for the purpose of sale of those shops, reflected only 7% amount
received from the concerned purchasers of those shops. Thus, the remaining
93% of the amount was siphoned away by the petitioners. The petitioners
herein are believed to have siphoned away total Rs.1,928/- crores in such a
manner. It is further mentioned in the FIR that from the amount siphoned away
by the petitioners, the other parcels of land were purchased by the petitioners in
Surat City in the names of their family members. Thus, the lands which were
purchased from the profit of the company, were shown to have been purchased
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3317/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026
undefined
in the names of the family members of the petitioners and the remaining
amount was invested by creating certain other companies. It is alleged in the
FIR that the petitioners herein were trying to reduce the shareholding of the
first informant and in furtherance thereof, the share capital of the company was
increased on Six occasions. As per the provisions of the Company Law, when
the share capital of the company is increased and the shares are to be allotted,
the offer letters for allotment of those shares are required to be issued to the
existing holders. The amount which was siphoned away as referred to
hereinabove, was sent to one of the petitioners Ashok Gajera who was residing
in Hongkong and through the said Ashok Gajera, the said amount was invested
in the company with an intention to reduce the shareholding of the first
informant and for the said purpose, the signatures of the first informant and his
family members were forged on several documents.
11. Upon perusal of the entire FIR, the case of the prosecution appears to
be such that initially the first informant was holding 43% shares in the
company and with an intention to reduce his shareholding in the company so
that lesser profit was required to be shared with the first informant, the entire
modus operandi was played by the petitioners herein. It is contended in the FIR
that the signatures of the first informant and his family member were forged on
14 documents. It is not in dispute that these documents were in the form of the
first informant and his family members having declined the officer for
allotment of shares. It is equally important to note that all those 14 documents
were in possession of the company and therefore, effectively in possession of
the petitioners herein and the Police authorities had asked the petitioners herein
to produce all those 14 documents in original. However, for the reasons best
known to the petitioners, out of 14 those documents, only 8 (Eight) original
documents were produced by the petitioners before the Police authorities.
Those 8 (Eight) documents were sent by the Police for obtaining an opinion of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3317/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026
undefined
the handwriting expert to FSL, Gandhinagar along with the specimen
handwriting of all the accused persons. The report submitted by the
handwriting expert i.e. FSL, Gandhinagar, indicates that those 8 (Eight)
documents did not bear the signatures of the first informant and his family
members, but their signatures on those documents were forged and they were
forged by none other than one of the petitioners viz. Ashok Gajera. The matter
does not end here. A letter was also submitted to the company being a letter
written by the first informant resigning from the post of the director of the
company and on that letter also, the signature of the first informant was found
to have been forged by petitioner Ashok Gajera. Thus, the allegation that the
documents referred to in the FIR were forged, finds a solid prima-facie support
from the opinion of the handwriting expert. This fact also goes to show the
intention on the part of the petitioners to oust the first informant and his family
members from the company with a view deprive them of their share in profit of
the company. It is sought to be argued on behalf of the petitioners that since
2010, the shareholding of the first informant had gradually reduced from 43%
to 6% which was in knowledge of the first informant. The alleged forgery of
the documents pertains to further reduction in the shareholding of the first
informant from 6% to 4% which was of no significance for the petitioners as it
was not likely to yield any benefits to them. As stated hereinabove, the report
of the handwriting expert, FSL, Gandhinagar confirms the signatures of the
first informant and his family members on the documents in question to have
been forged by one of the petitioners Ashok Gajera. Therefore, the aspect
whether the petitioners had any intention to cheat the first informant for meager
2% of the shares, would pale into insignificance at this stage. When there is a
material in the form of the report of the handwriting expert, FSL, Gandhinagar
indicating forgery having taken place against the first informant, this Court
finds it unnecessary to go into the aspect of the intention on the part of the
petitioners at this stage. The investigation of the offence is still at the nascent
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3317/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026
undefined
stage and the Investigating agency would collect the material during the course
of investigation and file an appropriate report before the concerned Court and it
would thereafter at the stage of trial of offence against the petitioners that the
aspect of intention on the part of the petitioners be required to be taken into
consideration.
12. It is also alleged in the FIR that the amount of more than Rs.1,900/-
crores has been siphoned away by the petitioners and the said amount is sought
to be brought back to the company through one of the petitioners Ashok Gajera
who is stationed at Hongkong. It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that this
allegation is nothing more than a presumption on the part of the first informant.
Examining the allegation in this regard, it is an admitted position from the
record that the shareholding of the first informant has been substantially
reduced from 43% to 4% and for reduction of the shareholding of the first
informant to this extent, the recourse has been taken to for increasing the share
capital of the company and allotment of shares to the petitioner Ashok Gajera.
The record speaks of substantial amount being brought to the company by
petitioner Ashok Gajera who in turn, has also been allotted large numbers of
shares. Thus, the allegation prima-facie does not appear to be baseless. It would
require a thorough investigation to find out the truth in this regard.
13. It is sought to be canvassed on behalf of the petitioners that the FIR has
been substantially delayed and delay has not been explained by the first
informant. The perusal of the material on record would indicates that for the
first time the first informant had approached the Police authorities with his
complaint in the year 2022. However, the Police authorities did not register an
offence on the basis of the said complaint. It, on the contrary thought it
necessary to carry out preliminary inquiry into the complaint. The record also
indicates that during the course of the said inquiry, the petitioners were also
summoned by the Police authorities on several occasions. However, they were
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3317/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026
undefined
reluctant in appearing before the Police authorities. The inquiry into the
complaint went on till 2025 till the receipt of the report of the handwriting
expert. Thus, there is a plausible explanation coming forth with regard to delay
in the FIR from the record itself. Whether the delay in FIR adversely affects the
case of prosecution, would require adjudication at the time of appreciation of
evidence at the end of the trial. Even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments
that delay caused in lodging the FIR is not explained, as per the settled law that
by itself cannot be ground for throwing away the FIR at the threshold. It would
be improper for this Court to do so in this case in the given set of
circumstances, more particularly when a strong prima-facie case is made out
against the petitioners.
14. It is also argued on behalf of the petitioners that the first informant had
others statutory remedy available to him to get his grievance redressed which
he had not availed. At the cost of repetition, it is required to be noted that when
there is a strong prima-facie material available against the petitioners in the
form of the report of handwriting expert, the argument leads nowhere. When it
is prima-facie established from record that the first informant is done wrong by
the petitioners by forging the signatures on the crucial documents, the
impugned FIR should not be thrown away at this stage simply because the first
informant has not taken recourse to the other remedies available to him. The
availability of other remedies to the first informant would not debar him from
lodging prosecution against the petitioners for they having done wrong to him
and merely because the other remedies are not availed by the first informant,
would not create a shadow of doubt on the contents of the FIR.
15. As noted hereinabove, the FIR in question is lodged on 21.02.2026 and
the investigation is still at the nascent stage. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its
judgment in case of Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited (Supra), has
held that it is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3317/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026
undefined
is disclosed in the First Information Report that the Court will not permit the
investigation to go on. It has further held that the power of quashing should be
exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the rarest
of rare cases.
16. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Mihir Joshi appearing for the one of the
petitioners has sought to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
case of Dinesh Gupta (Supra) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had held that
initiation of malicious prosecution in regard to civil and commercial matter
before the Court having no territorial jurisdiction and non application of mind
by the Court would be the factor for quashing of the FIR and imposition cost
upon the first informant. In the case before the Hon'ble Apex Court, though all
the events had taken place in Delhi and the parties were also stationed at Delhi,
the first informant sought to lodge the FIR at Gautam Buddha Nagar. As per the
facts of the case before the Hon'ble Apex Court, the first informant was though
aware about the amalgamation of two companies which was approved by the
Delhi High Court, had filed an application for recall of the order passed by the
Delhi High Court which was dismissed and these facts were suppressed by the
first informant in the FIR. It was under these circumstances that the aforesaid
observations were made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment in
question. In the present case, no such circumstances are arising, and therefore,
this judgment would be of no help to the petitioners.
17. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. I.H. Syed has sought to rely upon another
the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Delhi Race Club (Supra)
wherein it is held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that if it is the case of the
complainant that a particular amount is due and payable to him then he should
have filed a civil suit for recovery of the amount against the appellants therein.
But he could not have gone to the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate by filing a complaint of cheating and a criminal breach of trust. In
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3317/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026
undefined
the case before the Hon'ble Apex Court, there were business transactions
between the complainant and the accused and the complainant had sold certain
goods to the accused for which payments were not made by the accused to the
complainant. Thus, the dispute involved between the parties was purely of a
civil nature whereas in the present case there is an aspect of forgery involved
which is also supported from the material available on record. Therefore, the
aspect of criminality is also involved in the present offence. Therefore, the
dispute involved in the present case cannot be said to be purely of a civil
nature. Therefore, observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in this
judgment would render no assistance to the petitioners. He has also sought to
rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Anita Malhotra
(Supra) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "though it is not proper
for the High Court to consider the defense of the accused or conduct a roving
inquiry in respect of merits of accusation, but if on the face of the document
which his beyond suspicion or doubt, placed on record by the accused and if it
is considered that the accusation against her cannot stand, in such a matter, in
order to prevent injustice or abuse of process, it is incumbent on the High Court
to look into those documents which have a bearing on the matter even at the
initial stage and grant relief to the concerned person by exercising jurisdiction
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C." The documents which are pressed in service
on behalf of the petitioners are to show that the first informant had knowledge
of all these aspects since quite long. As mentioned hereinabove, when a strong
prima-facie case for forgery of documents is made out, the knowledge on the
part of the first informant about those documents would be of no significance.
Moreover, when such a strong prima-facie case has been made out against the
petitioners for commission of the offence, the defense which is sought to be
raised on behalf of the petitioners would not require consideration by this Court
at this stage. Therefore, this judgment would be of no help to the petitioners.
Learned Senior Advocate has further sought to rely upon another judgment of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3317/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026
undefined
the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Mohhamad Wajid (Supra) to contend that
merely because the petitioners are having antecedents that alone cannot be the
ground for rejecting the prayer for quashment of the FIR. From the discussion
made hereinabove, it would be clear that this Court has not at all referred to the
antecedents against the petitioners herein for declining the request for
quashment of the FIR in the present petitions. This Court has taken into
consideration the material available on record into consideration on its own
merits for its decision. Therefore, this judgment would be of no help to the
petitioners.
18. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. R.S. Sanjanwala appearing for the one of
the petitioners has sought to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in case of Chanchalpati Das (Supra) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has
held that "in the light of afore stated legal position, if the facts of the case are
appreciated, there remains no shadow of doubt that the complaint filed by the
respondent - complainant after an inordinate unexplained delay of 8 years was
nothing, but shear misuse and abuse of process of law to settle the personal
course with the appellants and that continuation of such malicious prosecution
would also be further abuse and misuse of process of law, more particularly,
when neither the allegations made in the complaint nor in the charge-sheet,
discloses any prima-facie case against the appellants." The aspect of delay in
FIR has already been taken into consideration by this Court here before, and
therefore, it is not required to be repeated here. It is required to be added that in
the facts before the Hon'ble Apex Court, the complaint and the charge-sheet
against the accused did not disclose any prima-facie case which is not the case
in the present matter, and therefore, this judgment would also be of no help to
the petitioners.
19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the petitions failed and are hereby
dismissed being devoid of any merit.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3317/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026
undefined
20. The request is made on behalf of the petitioners that the protection
granted by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide Order dated 26.02.2026, passed in
SLP Crl. Diary No.10942 of 2026 be continued for some time to enable the
petitioners herein to take recourse to the appropriate remedy available to them.
Since this Court, for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, does not find merit in
the petitions and since the same are being dismissed by this order, this Court
finds itself unable to continue the protection granted by the Hon'ble Apex
Court.
SD/-
(M. R. MENGDEY,J)
RAVI OZA
