[Cites 13, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Rakesh Kantilal Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 12 March, 2026

                                                                                                                  NEUTRAL CITATION




                            R/CR.MA/22900/2022                                    JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026

                                                                                                                  undefined




                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                              R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
                                            FIR/ORDER) NO. 22900 of 2022


                       FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                       HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER

                       ==========================================================

                                      Approved for Reporting                    Yes           No
                                                                                              ✔
                       ==========================================================
                                                      RAKESH KANTILAL PATEL
                                                              Versus
                                                     STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MR. KISHAN H DAIYA(6929) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
                       MS. VRUNDA SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                       MR. VISHVESH ACHARYA for RONITH JOY(9560) for the Respondent(s)
                       No. 2
                       ==========================================================

                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER

                                                            Date : 12/03/2026

                                                                JUDGMENT

1. The present application is filed seeking quashing of the

FIR under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure registered with Salabatpura Police Station for

the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420 and

120B of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation in the FIR

is that the first informant, namely Piyushbhai

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/22900/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026

undefined

Bardoliwala, was engaged in the business of Grey

Viscose Cloth at Surat and came into contact with

accused No.1, who is the proprietor of Khushal Impex,

while accused No.2 acted as a broker in the transaction.

It is alleged that the accused purchased goods worth Rs.

15,19,004/-. However, no payment whatsoever was made

towards the said goods and, instead, further goods were

demanded. Upon the complainant insisting on clearance

of the outstanding dues, certain cheques were issued by

the accused, which came to be dishonoured on account

of insufficient funds. On these allegations, the impugned

FIR came to be registered for the offences under

Sections 406, 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Kishan Daiya for the

applicant, learned APP Ms. Vrunda Shah for the

respondent-State and learned advocate Mr. Vishvesh

Acharya for respondent No.2.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Daiya for the applicant submitted

that the present applicant is not named in the FIR. It is

contended that the applicant has been implicated solely

on the basis of the statement of a co-accused, namely

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/22900/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026

undefined

Girish Gulabsinh Parekh, who is the proprietor of

Khushal Impex. It is further submitted that the bank

account of Khushal Impex had a mobile number and e-

mail ID registered in the name of the present applicant,

and merely on that basis the applicant has been

arraigned as an accused. Learned advocate further

submitted that the transaction between the first

informant and the accused persons named in the FIR is

essentially of a civil nature. Instead of availing

appropriate remedies under civil law, the first informant

has resorted to initiating criminal proceedings as a

shortcut to recover the alleged amount, which amounts

to an abuse of the process of law. In support of this

submission, reliance is placed on the decision rendered

by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Gumansing

Prathvising Parmar vs. State of Gujarat in Criminal

Miscellaneous Application No. 7029 of 2018 dated

02.04.2025. It is submitted that in an identically situated

case, this Court has quashed the FIR, and therefore on

the same ground the impugned FIR deserves to be

quashed and set aside.

4. Per contra, learned APP MS. Vrunda Shah submitted

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/22900/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026

undefined

that two FIRs have been registered against the accused

named in the present FIR and that there are

approximately 20 victims involved in the present case. It

is submitted that, as per the evidence collected during

the course of investigation against the named accused, it

has emerged that the present applicant was the main

person managing the affairs. It is further alleged that

the applicant had lent money to accused No.1 and, after

procuring the material from the open market, the same

was sold to various persons at a lower price in cash.

Thereafter, upon collecting the money, the applicant

allegedly absconded along with accused Nos.1 and 2

named in the FIR. It is further submitted that the

investigation against the present applicant is still

ongoing, and at this stage it would be premature to hold

that the applicant is not involved in the alleged offence.

Therefore, it is prayed that the present application be

dismissed.

5. Having considered the submissions advanced by the

learned advocates appearing for the respective parties,

and upon perusal of the role attributed to the present

applicant as emerging from the statement of Girish

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/22900/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026

undefined

Gulabsinh Parekh, it appears that Accused No. 1, who

was facing a financial crisis, had approached the present

applicant, and the present applicant had lent certain

monetary assistance. Thereafter, a firm in the name of

Khushal Impex was established at the address H 1 3-

2885/C/C/7A-3, which is owned by the present applicant.

It was further decided by the present applicant, in

collusion with the persons named in the FIR, to carry on

business of Grey Viscose Cloth in the open market by

procuring goods and selling the same at a lower price in

cash. It further transpires that a bank account was

opened with Yes Bank, wherein the mobile number and

email ID of the present applicant were registered. The

material on record also indicates that the present

applicant, in connivance with the other accused persons,

sold the goods and distributed the amount among

themselves. Thereafter, the cheque issued by Accused

No. 1 was dishonoured upon presentation, and thereby

the alleged offence, as stated in the FIR, came to be

committed. It is contended that the statement of a co-

accused cannot be relied upon for the purpose of

examining the existence of a prima facie case against

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/22900/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026

undefined

the applicant. In the opinion of this Court, when the

investigation is still in progress and certain material,

including bank account details of Yes Bank, has been

collected indicating mobile number and e-mail ID of the

present applicant, this Court can consider such material

along with the statement of the co-accused. Since the

investigation is still in progress and prima facie

involvement of the present applicant is reflected from

the material placed on record by the Investigating

Officer, this Court is of the opinion that this is not a fit

case for exercising inherent powers in favour of the

applicant.

6. This Court has referred to the decision of the Apex Court

in M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State

of Maharashtra and Others, reported in (2021) 19

SCC 401, wherein the Apex Court has laid down the

guidelines governing the exercise of inherent powers

under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The relevant guidelines are reproduced hereinbelow:

"As laid down in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the High Court should not embark upon an inquiry into the merits and demerits of the allegations and quash the proceedings

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/22900/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026

undefined

without allowing the investigating agency to complete its task. At the same time, in the following cases, FIR/complaint can be quashed:

(i) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(ii) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) CrPC except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) CrPC.

(iii) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(iv) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) СгРС.

(v) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(vi) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/22900/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026

undefined

provisions of CrPC or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(vii) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

7. Considering the above ratio, this Court is of the opinion

that the case of the applicant does not fall under any of

the exceptions referred to in the aforesaid judgment.

This Court has also referred the decision of the Apex

Court in the case of Rocky vs. State of Telangana,

reported in 2025 (0) JX (SC) 1486 wherein it is held

that inherent powers of the High Court under Section

482 CrPC must be exercised sparingly and only in

exceptional cases. The Apex Court emphasized that

when the FIR and charge sheet disclose prima facie

commission of cognizable offences, the High Court

should not interfere at the pre-trial stage or conducts a