IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 2410 of 2026 ==========================================================

ASHIK HASMUKHBHAI PATEL Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

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

Appearance:

MR. CHANDRASHEKHAR YADAV, ADVOCATE for MR NITIN D CHANDWANI(12245) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR. KRUTIK PARIKH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY Date : 24/02/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. By filing the present Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

“(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this petition.

(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to allow this petition by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the impugned FIR No. 11201001240015/2024, registered with the CID Crime Gandhinagar Zone dated 05.08.2024 for offences punishable under section U/s 409/420/465/468/471/120B/34 of IPC & 66D of IT Act and further be pleased to Quash and Set aside all / any proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR, if any qua the present petitioners. Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, (C) Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the investigation of the FIR No. 11201001240015/2024, registered with the CID CRIME Gandhinagar Zone dated 05.08.2024 for offences punishable under section U/s 409/420/465/468/471/120B/34 of IPC & 66D of IT Act qua the present petitioners.

(D) Such other and further relief/s as may deemed just and proper may please be granted in the interest of justice.”

2. The FIR No. 11201001240015 of 2024 came to be lodged with CID Crime Police Station, Gandhinagar Zone on 5.08.2024 for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 420, 465, 468, 471, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 against the Petitioner and the other co-accused. Being aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner is before this Court by filing the present Petition.

3. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Chandrashekhar Yadav appearing for the Petitioner. He submitted that the FIR in question has been lodged on 5.08.2024. Thereafter the Petitioner has been summoned by the concerned police authorities on several occasions, and, on all such occasions, the Petitioner has appeared before the police authorities and has provided the necessary information. The only role attributed to the Petitioner in the present offence is that he had provided the place on rent to the other co-accused. The premises was provided by the petitioner to the other co-accused on rent for the purpose of opening an office. The Petitioner herein was not at all aware about of the activities which were being carried on by the other co-accused in the premises in question. The Petitioner is not at all connected with the offence in question. So far as the email i.d. belonging to the Petitioner being attached to the bank accounts in question, is concerned, a desktop computer belonging to the present Petitioner was already lying in the premises when it was rented to the other co-accused and there is a possibility of the desktop computer being misused by the other co-accused and they may have derived the email i.d. from the said computer. The Petitioner herein has not derived any financial gain in the entire offence. He further submitted that, continuing the present proceedings against the Petitioner would amount to an infringement of fundamental right to liberty of the Petitioner. He therefore submitted to allow the present Petition and quash and set aside the FIR in question qua the Petitioner.

4. Learned APP has opposed the present Petition contending that several dummy firms were opened by the accused persons an