[Cites 34, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Subhashbhai Trambaklal Modi vs State Of Gujarat on 24 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1850/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 1850 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
SUBHASHBHAI TRAMBAKLAL MODI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRATIK B BAROT(3711) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR PV PATADIYA(5924) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. RONAK RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 24/03/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present application has been preferred seeking
quashment of the First Information Report (FIR) being I-
C.R. No. 141 of 2014 registered with Naranpura Police
Station, District Ahmedabad City, dated 06.05.2014, for
the offences punishable under Sections 376, 362, 342,
328, 406, 323, 506(1), and 114 of the Indian Penal Code,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1850/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026
undefined
as well as under Section 135(1) of the Gujarat Police
Act. The applicant has further prayed for quashing of the
charge-sheet filed pursuant thereto and proceedings of
Sessions Case No. 218 of 2015 pending before the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil and
Sessions Court at Ahmedabad.
2. Respondent No. 2, who is the victim, lodged the
impugned FIR alleging accusations against eleven
persons, including the present applicant, who is
arraigned as accused No. 1. As per the recitals of the
FIR, the complainant lost her mother at the age of four
years, and thereafter her father remarried. The present
applicant was residing in the same vicinity as a
neighbour. It is alleged that the applicant induced the
complainant on the pretext of arranging her marriage
with his relative and instigated her against her family
members under the guise that her marriage would
otherwise be solemnized in some tribal area. It is further
alleged that the complainant had cleared her 12th
standard examination approximately eight years prior to
the date of the incident. The applicant allegedly took her
to his office situated at C.G. Road, Dev Path Complex,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1850/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026
undefined
where, after consumption of a cold drink, she was
subjected to sexual intercourse by the applicant. It is
alleged that the complainant was thereafter repeatedly
subjected to sexual intercourse at different places at the
instance of the applicant, which continued until she
attained the age of 24 years. It is further alleged that
nude photographs and video clippings of the
complainant were taken, and she remained under the
control and influence of the applicant. The complainant's
father solemnized her marriage with one Ankitkumar
Ghanshyambhai Soni, however, it is alleged that due to
the intervention of the applicant, the said marriage was
dissolved within a period of one year. Thereafter, while
the complainant was employed at various places, the
applicant allegedly continued to take her to his office
and subjected her to sexual intercourse. Subsequently,
the complainant's second marriage was solemnized with
Miteshbhai Dilipbhai Dholakiya at Surendranagar on
15.12.2012. It is alleged that the applicant threatened
the complainant to give a missed call, failing which her
photographs would be disclosed to her in-laws. Being
under fear and insecurity, the complainant obeyed the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1850/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026
undefined
instructions of the applicant. On 16.01.2014, upon giving
a missed call, the applicant allegedly instructed her to
leave her matrimonial home after taking ornaments and
cash. Accordingly, the complainant left her in-laws'
house carrying ornaments and cash amounting to Rs.
17,00,000/-. It is further alleged that upon contacting
the applicant thereafter, he informed her that he was in
Mumbai and instructed her to return to her in-laws'
house. Upon expressing her inability to do so, the
applicant directed her to stay at the house of his friend,
namely Manisha. However, upon reaching the said
place, Manisha was not found there, and subsequently,
upon telephonic communication done by Manisha's
mother to Manisha, the complainant was directed to
reach Gujarat Vidyapith. There, she was allegedly
offered coffee by Manisha, and arrangements were made
as per the instructions of the applicant for her stay for a
period of two weeks. It is further alleged that Manisha
then called one Kaushik Panara, and Manisha took
possession of the complainant's cash, mobile phone, and
SIM card. The complainant has further alleged that she
was subjected to sexual exploitation by Kaushik Panara
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1850/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026
undefined
and Jitu Mali, with the aid and assistance of other
accused persons named in the FIR. On 19.04.2014, while
residing at the house of one Apexa, the complainant
allegedly came across a publication issued by her father
and father-in-law regarding her alleged kidnapping.
Thereupon, she contacted her father-in-law on the
number mentioned therein. Subsequently, she was taken
to Sola Police Station and thereafter to Surendranagar
Police Station. As a Habeas Corpus petition had been
filed, she was produced before this Court, and
thereafter, custody was handed over to her husband
upon an undertaking that he would withdraw the FIR
lodged against the complainant for theft. In the
aforesaid background and allegations, the impugned FIR
came to be registered, and upon completion of the
investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Pratik Barot for the
applicant and learned advocate Mr. P. V. Patadiya for
respondent No. 2 and learned APP Mr. Ronak Raval for
the State.
4. It is submitted by learned advocate Mr. Barot that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1850/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026
undefined
story put forth by the victim is inherently improbable
and lacks credibility. It is contended that, as per the
version of the complainant herself, the alleged acts of
exploitation by the present applicant commenced when
she had completed her 12th standard and are stated to
have continued till she attained the age of 24 years,
which, according to the learned advocate, renders the
allegations doubtful. It is further submitted that upon
her recovery, when the victim was produced before the
Surendranagar Police Station, her statement came to be
recorded on 20.04.2014 under Section 161 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure. In the said statement, no
allegations of rape or sexual assault were made against
the present applicant. It is contended that the said
statement, being the earliest version given by the victim,
deserves due weightage while adjudicating the present
application. Learned advocate Mr. Barot has further
submitted that the impugned FIR is an afterthought,
lodged only subsequent to the husband of the victim
filing an FIR alleging theft of ornaments and cash
amounting to Rs. 17,00,000/-. It is contended that
although the period of the alleged offence is stated to be
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1850/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026
undefined
from 20.01.2014 to 19.04.2014, the FIR came to be
lodged belatedly on 06.05.2014 without any plausible
explanation for such delay. It is further submitted that
during the aforesaid period, there are no allegations of
sexual exploitation at the instance of the present
applicant. On the contrary, as per the prosecution case
itself, the victim was allegedly exploited by other
persons at different places. In absence of any specific
overt act or direct attribution of any criminal offence
against the present applicant, continuation of the
impugned proceedings would amount to an abuse of the
process of law. In support of the aforesaid submissions,
learned advocate Mr. Barot has placed reliance upon the
judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Maneesha
Yadav Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh And
Another , reported in 2024 (4) Supreme 30; Payal
Sharma Vs. State of Punjab And Another , reported
in 2024 (Supp) AIR(SC) 939; Batlanki Keshav
(Kesava) Kumar Anurag Vs. State of Telangana,
reported in 2025 (8) JT 115; and Disha Kapoor Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in 2025 (O) AIR(SC)
2273. On the aforesaid grounds, it is prayed that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1850/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026
undefined
present application be allowed and the impugned FIR,
charge-sheet, and all consequential criminal proceedings
be quashed qua the present applicant.
5. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Patadiya appearing for
the complainant has submitted that the statement relied
upon by the learned advocate for the applicant, having
been recorded by the Police Authority under Section 161
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is wholly
inadmissible in evidence and, therefore, cannot be taken
into consideration while adjudicating a petition under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is
further submitted that the jurisdiction under Section 482
of the Code is limited in scope and is required to be
exercised only for the purpose of ascertaining whether
sufficient material exists to proceed against the accused.
Placing reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in
the case of Muskan Vs. Ishaan Khan (Sataniya)
reported in 2025 (0) AIR(SC) 5458, it is contended
that this Court ought not to embark upon a mini trial at
this stage. In the aforesaid backdrop, it is prayed that
the present application be dismissed.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1850/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026
undefined
6. Learned APP Mr. Raval, in addition to the submissions
advanced on behalf of the complainant, has submitted
that the medical examination of the victim records a
history which reiterates the version as set out in the FIR.
It is further submitted that the statements of the family
members, namely the father-in-law, uncle, and father of
the victim, specifically indicate that the present
applicant used to repeatedly contact the victim, which
was also one of the reasons for the breakdown of her
first marriage. It is further pointed out that, as per the
result of the polygraph test, the present applicant, while
undergoing the said test, responded in the affirmative to
question No. R-6 regarding his presence at Mumbai on
the date when the victim was allegedly abducted, as well
as his prior presence at Surendranagar. On the basis of
the aforesaid material, it is submitted that it cannot be
said that the continuation of proceedings against the
present applicant amounts to an abuse of the process of
law or that no prima facie case is made out against him.
In this view of the matter, it is prayed that the present
application be dismissed.
7. Having considered the submissions advanced by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1850/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026
undefined
learned advocates appearing for the respective parties,
this Court has examined the material placed on record
by the Investigating Officer. The limited question which
arises for consideration is whether the allegations made
in the FIR, read in conjunction with the material
collected during the course of investigation, disclose a
prima facie case against the present applicant or not. In
order to adjudicate the said issue, This Court has
referred to the decision of the Apex Court in State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1)
SCC 335, wherein the Apex Court has laid down the
guidelines governing the exercise of inherent powers
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
which are reproduced hereinbelow:-
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant
provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of
law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to
the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the
inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have
extracted and reproduced above, we have given the following
categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power
could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any
court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not
be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1850/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026
undefined
sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae
and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein
such power should be exercised.
(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) of the Code except under an order of a
Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(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) of the Code.
(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
provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (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 concerned Act, providing efficacious
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1850/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026
undefined
redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(vii) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala
fide 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."
7.1. In order to ascertain whether the case of the present
applicant falls within any of the categories enumerated
in the aforesaid decision, it is necessary to examine the
allegations made in the FIR and the relevant material on
produced by the applicant. In this regard, particular
reference is required to be made to the complaint dated
02.02.2014 lodged by the husband of the victim alleging
theft against her. As per the allegations made in the
complaint lodged by the husband of the victim, namely
Miteshbhai, the victim had left her matrimonial home
carrying cash amounting to Rs. 17,00,000/- along with
gold and silver ornaments. It is further recited therein
that the earlier marriage of the victim had broken down
on account of the intervention of the present applicant.
The said complaint also records that during the period
from 10.01.2014 to 20.01.2014, the victim had made
several calls to the mobile number of the present
applicant, being No. 9825070789. Further, as per the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1850/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026
undefined
polygraph test report conducted during the course of
investigation of the theft FIR, the present applicant is
stated to have responded in the affirmative to questions
regarding the victim's stay in a flat in his proximity, his
employment with Syndicate Bank, his presence at
Mumbai on the date when the victim was allegedly
abducted, and his prior presence at Surendranagar. The
allegations made in the present FIR with regard to
sexual exploitation, coupled with the circumstances that
the victim lost her mother at an early age, her father's
remarriage, the applicant being a neighbour residing in
close proximity, the victim being taken to the applicant's
office where she was allegedly subjected to sexual
intercourse, and her leaving the matrimonial home at
the instance of the applicant, as well as the call records
between the victim and the applicant reflected in the
theft FIR, constitute material which cannot be
overlooked while determining whether the present
applicant has been falsely implicated.
8. Insofar as the judgment relied upon by the learned
advocate for the applicant in the case of Batlanki
Keshav (Kesava) Kumar Anurag (supra) is concerned,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1850/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026
undefined
the same is clearly distinguishable on facts. In the said
case, the marriage between the parties could not be
solemnized on account of differences in caste. In that
backdrop, the Apex Court took into consideration the
closure report in FIR No. 751 of 2021 placed on record,
which revealed that the de facto complainant had
earlier, on 23.01.2019, lodged a similar complaint at
Osmania University Police Station, Hyderabad, against
one Dr. Ranjit Thankappan, who was then serving as an
Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication
at Osmania University, alleging cheating and sexual
exploitation on the pretext of a false promise of
marriage. In view of such antecedents, the Hon'ble Apex
Court held that the de facto complainant was in the
habit of lodging such complaints and had falsely
implicated the accused persons with oblique motives.
Similarly, in Suresh Garodia Vs. State of Assam
reported in 2024 (0) AIR (SC) 783, the Apex Court
exercised its inherent powers to quash proceedings in
view of an inordinate delay of 34 years in lodging the
FIR under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal
Code. In Disha Kapoor (supra), the Apex Court found
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1850/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026
undefined
that the allegations were uncorroborated by the
available evidence and were contradicted by the conduct
of the complainant to such an extent that the
prosecution case was rendered inherently improbable
for constituting offences under Sections 498A, 325, and
506 of the Indian Penal Code. However, in the present
case, the factual matrix is entirely distinct. The material
on record, as discussed hereinabove, does not render
the allegations inherently improbable at this stage.
Consequently, the aforesaid decisions would not advance
the case of the present applicant.
9. It is true that, as per the statement recorded by the
Police under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure during the course of investigation of the theft
case, no such allegations have been made against the
present applicant. However, in the considered opinion of
this Court, the same by itself cannot constitute a sole
ground for quashing of the FIR. At the highest, such
omission may be utilized for the purpose of contradiction
of the victim during the course of trial. At this stage, this
Court deems it appropriate to refer to the following
decisions rendered by the Apex Court:
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1850/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026
undefined
9.1. In the case of Pinakbhai Riddhibhai Desai Vs.
State of Gujarat, reported in 2025 (0) JX (Guj) 1020,
wherein the Apex Court laid down comprehensive
principles governing the exercise of the High Court's
inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure and jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution for quashing FIRs. The Court held that
the police have a statutory right and duty to investigate
cognizable offences, and courts should ordinarily not
interfere at the stage of investigation or grant blanket
orders restraining investigation. It emphasized that
while considering a petition for quashing, the High
Court must only examine whether the allegations in the
FIR prima facie disclose a cognizable offence, without
evaluating the truthfulness of the allegations or
conducting a mini-trial. The Court further clarified that
quashing of criminal proceedings is an exception and
should be exercised sparingly and with great caution,
and routine interference with investigations would
amount to encroaching upon the powers of the
investigating agency.
9.2. In the case of Rocky Vs. State of Telangana,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1850/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026
undefined
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
mini-trial, and routine interim protections such as
directions for "no coercive steps" should not be granted
as they obstruct the statutory power of the police to
investigate offences. The Apex Court further held that
criminal proceedings should continue where the
allegations are not inherently improbable and disclose
the ingredients of an offence.
9.3. In the case of Somjeet Mallick vs. State of
Jharkhand, reported in 2024 (10) SCC 527, wherein it
is held that while considering the petition for quashing
under Section 482 Cr.PC, the Court must examine the
allegations in the FIR and the materials collected during
investigation at their face value only to determine
whether a prima facie case is made out. The Court has
observed that the correctness or truthfulness of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1850/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026
undefined
allegations cannot be tested at the preliminary stage and
if the allegations disclose dishonest conduct or a
cognizable offence requires investigation, the High
Court should not quash the proceedings at the threshold
as doing so would obstruct a legitimate investigation.
9.4. In the case of State Represented by the Inspector
of Police vs. M.Maridoss, reported in 2023(4) SCC
338, wherein it is held that while exercising powers
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
the High Court should not conduct a "mini-trial" or
evaluate the evidence in detail at the stage of quashing
an FIR. The Court observed that the Madras High Court
had prematurely quashed criminal proceedings under
Sections 124A, 153A, 504, 505(1)(b), and 505(2) of the
Indian Penal Code within four days of the FIR being
lodged, without giving investigating agency the
reasonable time to investigate.
9.5. In the case of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt.
Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2021) (0)
AIJEL-SC 67272, wherein it is held that interim
protection should not be routinely granted in quashing
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1850/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026
undefined
petitions as it interferes with police investigation of
cognizable offences.
9.6. In the case of Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel Vs.
State of Gujarat, reported in 2018 (3) SCC 104,
wherein it is held that while exercising powers under
Section 482 CrPC, the High Court must not interfere
with the investigation if the FIR discloses the prima facie
commission of a cognizable offence. The Court observed
that the High Court cannot act like an investigating or
appellate authority by examining disputed facts or
evidence at the preliminary stage, and once a prima
facie offence is disclosed, it should allow the
investigating agency to carry out the investigation in
accordance with law rather than passing orders that
impede or stall the statutory powers of the police.
9.7. In the case of State of Andhra Pradesh Vs.
Vangaveeti Nagaiah, reported in (2009) 12 SCC 466,
wherein it is held that while considering an application
for discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, the court is only required to examine
whether a prima facie case exists against the accused
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1850/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026
undefined
based on the material placed by the prosecution, and it
cannot conduct a detailed evaluation of evidence as if
holding a trial. The Court emphasized that at the stage
of framing charges; the judge should not meticulously
analyze the reliability or sufficiency of evidence but
should see whether the materials on record raise a
strong suspicion that the accused has committed the
offence. If such suspicion exists, the matter must
proceed to trial. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set
aside the High Court's order that had interfered with the
trial court's decision and reiterated that detailed
appreciation of evidence is impermissible at the stage of
discharge or framing of charge.
10. It is a settled position of law that the inherent powers
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are
required to be exercised with great circumspection, in
rare and exceptional cases. Such powers are to be
exercised sparingly, with due care and caution, and only
when the exercise thereof is justified by the parameters
specifically laid down under the provision. In the
aforesaid backdrop, it cannot be said that the allegations
levelled against the present applicant are patently
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1850/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026
undefined
frivolous, vexatious, or inherently improbable so as to
not disclose the commission of any offence.
11. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present
application fails and is accordingly dismissed.
12. Rule is discharged.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
NIVYA A. NAIR
