IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 16748 of 2025 ==========================================================

MANUBHAI CHHOTABHAI VAGHELA & ORS.

Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

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

Appearance:

MR DAXESH D BAROT(13149) for the Applicant(s) No.

1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,2,20,21,22,23,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 MS. VRUNDA C. SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY Date : 17/02/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. By filing the present Petition under Article 226 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 application;

(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to quash FIR beingC.R. No. 11204068250470 of 2025 dated 23.11.2025 registered with Vadtal Police Station, Kheda (Annexur-A) qua the applicants in the interest of justuce;

(C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this application, Your Lordship may be pleased to grant stay against further proceedings of FIR being C.R.No. 11204068250470 of 2025 dated 23.11.2025 registered with Vadtal Police Station, Kheda (Annexure-A) qua the applicants and further be pleased to direct the Investigating Officer not to take any coercive steps against the applicants in the interest of justice;

(D) Your Lordships may be pleased to grant such other and further reliefs as may be deemed fit, just and proper in the interest of justice.”

2. The impugned FIR came to be registered with the Vadtal Police Station on 23.11.2025 against the Petitioners for offence punishable under Sections 3, 4(3) and 5(c) of the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and Section 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 352 and

351(3) of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the investigating agency has submitted a report to the learned Special Court, Nadiad, stating therein, that during the course of investigation into the present FIR, it was noted that no incident of rioting took place, and therefore, the provisions with regard to the offence of rioting, were not invoked against the Petitioners in the charge sheet filed by the investigating agency. Thus, the Petitioners herein are being prosecuted for the offence punishable under the provisions of the Act.

3.1 Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same and the charge sheet filed thereafter, the Petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present Petition.

4. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Daxesh D. Barot appearing for the Petitioners. He submitted that no offence as alleged in the FIR against the Petitioners for having grabbed the land of the first informant is committed by the Petitioners, as the Petitioners herein, are in possession of the disputed land since past more than hundred years, and therefore, they cannot be said to have committed any offence of land grabbing. The first informant has lodged the present FIR only with a view to take away the possession of the disputed land from the Petitioners herein. The Petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present offence. The forefathers of the Petitioners herein were inducted as tenants in the disputed land since 1950 – 1951, and thus, the Petitioners were, in possession of the disputed land, in the capacity of tenants. He further submitted that civil proceedings have already been initiated by the Petitioners herein claiming adverse possession over the disputed land, and, in those proceedings, the learned Civil Court had also appointed Court Commissioner. The said application is still pending before the learned Civil Court. Pending those civil proceedings, the first informant lodged the present FIR with an intention to convert the dispute, which is absolutely of a civil nature, to a criminal n