ORAL ORDER

Present note for speaking to minutes is filed stating that instead of stay the proceeding against the petitioner somehow in the order it is mentioned that no coercive step shall be taken against the petitioner and has requested to pass appropriate order.

Perusing the record it appears that in view of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raghunath Sharma Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2025 INSC 723, and in case of Akhil Bhartvarshiya Marwari Agarwal Jatiya Kosh & Ors., Vs. Brijlal Tibrewal & Ors., reported in 2019 2 SCC 684, a note for speaking to Minutes is required to be entertained only for the limited purpose of correcting a typographical error or an error through oversight, which may have crept in while transcribing the original order. A note for speaking to Minutes cannot be considered at par with an application for clarification / modification of an order.

NEUTRAL CITATION

undefined

If the petitioner wants to challenge the said order then he has to file appropriate proceeding before the appropriate Court.

In view of above facts, the present note filed by the learned Advocate for the petitioner does not fall within the purview of “note for speaking to minutes”. Accordingly, present note for speaking to minutes is dismissed (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)

ANKIT

NEUTRAL CITATION

undefined

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 12714 of 2025 ==========================================================

JAYRAJBHAI DEVABHAI @ DEVKUBHAI VIKRAMA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

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

Appearance:

MR. NIPUL H GONDALIA(6894) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR.KISHAN PRAJAPATI(7074) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR ADITYA JADEJA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 18/09/2025

ORAL ORDER

By way of present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 528 of the BNSS, the petitioner has soguht for quashing of the FIR being CR No.11210066250200 of 2025 registered with Pal Police Station, Surat City for the o punishable under Sections 3 16 (5), 3(5) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023 filed at the instance of respondent No.2.

Having heard learned advocate for the petitioner and learned APP for respondent No.1 – State and perusing the complaint it appears that petitioner is not named in the FIR and it is alleged that the complainant wanted to sell off his gold jewelry and he met the accused No.1 and other two unknown persons and said three accused persons assured the complainant that they know many jewelers and his work of selling gold jewelry can be done and having been convinced, the complainant handed over his jewelry to the accused persons however, the accused persons did not turn up and in this regard, the complaint is filed. It further appears that alleged incident took place at Surat while present petitioner belong to District

NEUTRAL CITATION

undefined

Junagadh and he neither contacted the complainant nor the accused person at relevant point of time. TI parade was conducted and statement of one person during the course of investigation was recorded who has stated that present petitioner intended to purchase the said jewelry and except this, no role is attributed to the present petitioner and no actual commission of offence or involvement of present petitioner or no any overt act on the part of the present petitioner prima facie made out from the reading of the FIR.

Learned APP has opposed the petition by submitting that the petitioner is having five past similar antecedents.

Considering the aforesaid fact, present petition deserves consideration.

RULE returnable on 24.11.2025 Learned APP waives service of notice for and on behalf of respondent No.1 – State of Gujarat.

Respondent No.2 to be served through the concerned police station.

There shall be no c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document