[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Sanjay Rameshchandra Shah vs State Of Gujarat on 24 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/2076/2023 ORDER DATED: 24/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 2076 of 2023
================================================================
SANJAY RAMESHCHANDRA SHAH & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR JAY R SHAH for MR JINESH H KAPADIA(5601) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR KM ANTANI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA
Date : 24/03/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of the present petition, the petitioners have
prayed for the following reliefs:-
"[A] YOUR LORDSHIP may be please to admit and
allow the present petition.
[B] By issuing a writ of mandamus or certiorari
or any other appropriate, writ, order or direction
YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to quash and
set aside the FIR No.11201018230001 of 2023
registered on 14.01.2023 at CID Cyber Crime Police
Station, Gandhinagar for the offence punishable
under section 4 and 5 of the Gambling Prohibition
Act and under section 23(e), 23(f), 23(g), 23(h) and
23(l) of the Securities Contract Regulation Act 1956
in the interest of justice (AnnexureA);
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/2076/2023 ORDER DATED: 24/03/2026
undefined
[C] Pending hearing and till the final disposal of
the present petition YOUR LORDSHIP may be
please to stay the further investigation in
connection with FIR No.11201018230001 of 2023
registered on 14.01.2023 at CID Cyber Crime Police
Station, Gandhinagar in the interest of justice;
[D] Grant such other and further relief(s) as
deemed just and proper by this Hon'ble Court in
the interest of justice."
2. It appears that by way of FIR dated 14.01.2023,
based on secret information, to the effect that certain
individuals were indulging in Dabba Trading i.e. by not
indulging in actual sale or purchase of shares but based
on increase or decrease of the price of shares on stock
indexes, they were exchanging monitory consideration.
Thus, offences under Sections 23(e), 23(f), 23(g), 23(h)
and 23(l) of the Securities Contract Regulation Act, 1956
(hereinafter referred to as "the Securities Act") and
under sections 4 and 5 of the Prevention of Gambling
Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Gambling Act") were
registered.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/2076/2023 ORDER DATED: 24/03/2026
undefined
3. Aggrieved, the petitioners herein have challenged
the said FIR registered with CID Cyber Crime Police
Station, Gandhinagar on the ground that as per section
26 of the Securities Act, cognizance of the offence cannot
be taken by any Court except on a complaint made by
the Central Government, or, by the State Government, or
the Securities and Exchange Board of India, or, a
recognized stock exchange, or, by any person.
4. Heard learned advocate for the petitioners. Learned
advocate has vehemently submitted that no offence under
the Securities Act can be taken cognizance in view of
section 26 of the said Act. He submitted that therefore,
the FIR is liable to be quashed. It was also submitted
that even qua gambling, no specific act of gambling is
made out, and therefore, looking to the said fact, the
FIR pertaining to offence under Gambling may also be
quashed. In support of the said arguments, the learned
advocate has relied on the judgment of this Court in the
case of Anilbhai Manibhai Kotak v. State of Gujarat
reported at 2024 (0) AIJEL - HC 251278 . It was thus
urged that the petition may kindly be allowed and
consequently, the reliefs as stated in prayer clause to the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/2076/2023 ORDER DATED: 24/03/2026
undefined
petition may kindly be granted.
5. Learned APP Mr. K.M. Antani for the respondents
also fairly submitted that he is not in a position to
controvert the legal position as regard section 26 of the
Act. However, he submitted that in so far as the
offences under the Gambling Act is concerned, no such
bar is found under the said Securities Contract Act and
that therefore to that extent the FIR may not be
quashed.
6. In the rejoinder arguments, it was submitted that
except for the breach of provisions of Securities Contract
Act, no other allegations are made constituting any
independent offence under the Gambling Act. It was thus
submitted that the entire FIR and consequential
proceedings may kindly be quashed and set aside.
7. Having heard the learned advocate for the
respective parties, this Court proceeds to decide the
present petition in terms appearing hereinafter.
8. At the outset, section 26 requires to be quoted for
the ease of reference which reads as under:-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/2076/2023 ORDER DATED: 24/03/2026
undefined
"26. Cognizance of offences by courts.-(1) No court
shall take cognizance of any offence punishable
under this Act or any rules or regulations or by-
laws made thereunder, save on a complaint made
by the Central Government or State Government
or the Securities and Exchange Board of India or
a recognised stock exchange or by any person."
9. As has been held by this Court in case of Anilbhai
Manibhai Kotak (supra), placing reliance on Vipulkumar
Shah v. State of Gujarat (Special Criminal Application
No.1781 of 2018), it is plain that any offence under the
Securities Contract Act cannot be taken cognizance by a
Court except on a complaint made by the Central
Government, or, the State Government, or, the Securities
and Exchange Board of India, or, a recognized stock
exchange, or, by any person. Admittedly, no complaint
has been filed in respect of the present offence. Hence,
even after the investigation, no Court would be able to
take cognizance of the concerned FIR, and therefore, the
entire exercise would be an exercise in futility. This is
so as the complaint in writing before the Court, would
be a complaint defined as in terms of section 2(d) of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/2076/2023 ORDER DATED: 24/03/2026
undefined
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Thus, when a charge-
sheet placed before the Sessions Court (as the said Court
would be the Court trying offence under the Securities
Contract Act), such Court would not be in a position to
take cognizance of the Police report in view of the bar
under section 26 of the Act. Moreover, no ingredients,
necessary for the offence to be made out under the
provisions of the Gambling Act have been spelt out in
the FIR. Hence, the submission that the said offence
would survive, is also not sustainable.
10. In the circumstances, this Court, invoking
parameters six of the judgment in State of Haryana v.
Bhajanlal reported at 1992 (1) SCC 335, is inclined to
quash the criminal proceedings arising from the aforesaid
FIR. Therefore, the petition is liable to be allowed. Rule
is made absolute. Resultantly, the FIR
No.11201018230001 of 2023, dated 14.01.2023, registered
with CID Cyber Crime Police Station, Gandhinagar and
the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are
hereby quashed and set aside qua the petitioners herein.
However, liberty is provided to any authorized person as
indicated under section 26 of the Act to file complaint, if
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/2076/2023 ORDER DATED: 24/03/2026
undefined
deemed appropriate, in terms of section 26 of the
Securities Contract Act.
11. Direct service is permitted.
(J. L. ODEDRA, J)
Manoj Kumar Rai
