IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 6926 of 2017 ==========================================================

NAVINBHAI GANGARAM AGRAWAL Versus REENA SANJAYBHAI BHATT & ORS.

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

Appearance:

MR RJ GOSWAMI(1102) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR VAIBHAV N SHETH(5337) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4 MR. CHINTAN DAVE, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 5 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI Date : 13/10/2025

ORAL ORDER

1. The present petition is preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the legality, propriety, and correctness of the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 22, Ahmedabad, whereby the learned Magistrate, in exercise of powers under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, declined to issue process in Criminal Inquiry No. 38 of 2013 instituted by the petitioner. The said order, upon challenge, came to be confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, vide order dated 21.08.2017 passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 71 of 2015.

2. Shorn of non-essential details, the relevant factual matrix of the lis in hand is adumbrated, thus: The petitioner was previously employed with a company styled Vishal Travels Private Limited. It is the petitioner’s case that the said company represented to him that upon investment of certain funds, he would be inducted as a Director in the said company. Acting upon such representation, the petitioner invested a total sum of ₹2.50 lakhs by issuing two cheques — Cheque No. 798599 dated 15.08.2008 drawn on Bank of Baroda and Cheque No. 642396 dated 05.08.2012 drawn on State Bank of India and also paid ₹50,000/- in cash. The said cheques were duly encashed by the company. However, despite the assurance, the petitioner was not appointed as a Director, thereby giving rise to allegations of deceit and breach of trust.

2.2. Being aggrieved, the petitioner lodged a written complaint dated 31.05.2013 before Ellisbridge Police Station, Ahmedabad, but as no FIR came to be registered, he preferred a private complaint dated 30.10.2013 before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 22, Ahmedabad, which was registered as Criminal Case No. 38 of 2013 for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner’s verification was recorded, witnesses were examined, and documentary evidence was produced in support of his allegations. However, by order dated 17.11.2014, the learned trial Court dismissed the said complaint under Section

203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2.3. The petitioner, being dissatisfied with the aforesaid dismissal, preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 71 of 2015 before the learned City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad. The said revision came to be heard and dismissed by a detailed order dated 21.08.2017, thereby affirming the order of the learned Magistrate. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present petition, assailing the concurrent findings of the courts below.

3. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner, learned APP for the respondent-State. None appeared for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

4. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner fervently contended that the impugned order dated 21.08.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, confirming the order of dismissal of the private complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, suffers from patent illegality and material irregularity, warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.

4.1. It is submitted that the learned trial Court, while dismissing the complaint, failed to appreciate that the petitioner had placed on record cogent documentary evidence as well as the oral testimony establishing the inducement and the consequen