The court emphasized that quashing of FIRs should be rare; evidence sufficient to establish allegations of fraud and breaches of trust necessitates continuance of proceedings under relevant sections of law.

ORDER :

Hasmukh D. Suthar, J.

1. By way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”), the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

“A. To allow the present petition and quash and set aside the impugned FIR being CR No.11192020250319 of 2025 dated 03.05.2025 registered with Dholka Police Station, District Ahmedabad, along with the consequential proceedings, if any, for the offences punishable under sections 420 & 120(B) of IPC & under section 3 of GPID Act, 2003, annexed with the petition at Annexure-A;

B. To quash and set aside the impugned charge sheet being No.178/2025 dated 09.07.2025 filed in connection with FIR bearing No.11192020250319 dated 03.05.2025, registered with Dholka Police Station, District Ahmedabad, along with the consequential proceedings, if any, for the offences punishable under sections 420 & 120(B) of IPC & under section 3 of GPID Act, 2003, annexed with the petition at Annexure-B;”

2. The impugned FIR is filed at the instance of respondent No.2 alleging therein that the accused persons had opened one “Sainaman Mitra Mandal” and lured the complainant and other persons for investing in the same by promising them higher interest rates upon investing. It is further the case that partial amount of their invested money was returned to them as promised with the agreed rates of interest, but afterwards no returns were paid to them and total amount of Rs.31 lakh invested by the complainant has not been returned and in this regard the FIR is filed alleging offence punishable under Sections 409, 420 and 120(B) of the IPC. After investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 120(B) of the IPC and section 3 of the GPID Act, which culminated into GPID CC No.20/2025, which is pending adjudication before the learned Sessions Court, Ahmedabad.

3. At the outset, it is worth to mention that though the FIR is registered for the offence under Section 420 read with Section 120(B) of the IPC subsequently, the charge-sheet is filed for the offence under Section 406 and 120(B) of the IPC and even the learned Designated Court has registered the case for the offence under Sections 406 and 120(B) of the IPC and section 3 of the GPID Act.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Ronith Joy for the petitioner has submitted that impugned proceeding is filed maliciously by the complainant after an unexplained delay of nearly three years alleging that the petitioner – accused No.1 and his brother (accused No.2) induced the complainant to invest Rs.31 lakh in a local mandal with assurance of good returns however, the allegations are vague, self-contradictory and bereft of any cogent material against the petitioner. There is neither any specific role attributed to the petitioner nor any material to suggest dishonest intention from inception which is an essential ingredient to constitute offence under Section 420 of the IPC. Further, section 3 of the GPID Act is wrongly invoked as transaction in question does not involve public at large and even the petitioner’s entity is not covered within the statutory definition of a “financial establishment” under the GPID Act and said provision is mechanically added. Even, only the Designated Court notified under Section 6 of the GPID Act and the State Government under Sections 4 & 5 of the GPID Act are empowered to invoke the provisions of GPID Act and the role of police is limited to inv