IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 9049 of 2025 With CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (FOR AMENDMENT) NO. 1 of 2025 In R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 9049 of 2025 ==========================================================

MOHAMMED AMIN SHARIYAKHAN PATHAN @ BABA KHAN & ORS.

Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

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

Appearance:

KSHITIJ M AMIN(7572) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4 MR. RAHUL R DHOLAKIA(6765) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4 MR ANUJ K TRIVEDI(6251) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR ZUBIN F BHARDA(159) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR. HARDIK DAVE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR WITH MR. H.K. PATEL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY Date : 18/12/2025

ORAL ORDER

ORDER IN CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (FOR AMENDMENT) NO. 1 of 2025 In R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 9049 of

2025: -

Heard learned Advocates for the parties. In view of the averments made in the present application, the present application deserves consideration and hence, the present application is hereby allowed. The learned Advocate is hereby permitted to carry out necessary amendment as prayed for.

ORDER IN R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING)

NO.9049 of 2025: -

1. Heard learned Advocates for the parties. Learned Advocate Mr. Zubin Bharda appearing for the Respondent No.2 has raised a preliminary objection as regards the maintainability of the present petition. He submitted that in the present case, the investigation is over and chare-sheet has been filed and criminal case number is also given. Therefore, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni Versus State of Maharashtra and Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1948, the present petition is not maintainable. As per his submission, the cognizance of an offence has already been taken by the learned Trial Court against the petitioners herein, and therefore, the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not maintainable.

2. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment in case of Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni (Supra) in para 8 has observed as under:-

“It is true that the police report (charge-sheet) had been filed on 14^th May, 2025 upon completion of investigation of the FIR, but whether or not cognizance had been taken by the jurisdictional magistrate is not too clear from the impugned order extracted above. So long cognizance of the offence is not taken, a writ or order to quash the FIR/charge-sheet could be issued under Article 226; however, once a judicial order of taking cognizance intervenes, the power under Article 226 though not available to be exercised, power under Section 528, BNSS was available to be exercised to quash and not only the FIR/charge-sheet but also the order taking cognizance, provided the same is placed on record along with the requisite pleadings to assail the same and a strong case for such quashing is set up.”

3. In the present case, the charge-sheet has been filed by the Investigating agency against the petitioners in the month of November 2025 and the same has also been registered as a criminal case. As is before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni (Supra), there is no order on record which would indicate that a cognizance of the offence has been taken by the learned Trial Court against the petitioners merely because the case has been registered as a criminal case on the basis of the chare-sheet. It cannot be said that the cognizance of the offence has been taken as there is nothing on record to indicate that while ordering the case to be registered as criminal case, the learned Magistrate has applied his judicial mind. Therefore, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment in case of Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni (Supra) referred to hereinabove, this Court can exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constituti