SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 8255

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Vimal K. Vyas, J
Mahesh Gangubhai Chhaiya – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 2036 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sudhir I. Nanavati, Pritesh M. Shah
For the Respondents: Hardik A. Dave, Manan Maheta

The requirement of filing multiple charge-sheets for "continuing unlawful activity" under organized crime legislation pertains to the crime syndicate as a whole, not individual members. The primary test for invoking such provisions against an individual is the existence of a definitive nexus with the syndicate's unlawful operations.

Headnote:(A) Control of Terrorism and Organized Crime Act - Sections 2(1)(a), 2(1)(c), 2(1)(e), 2(1)(f), 3(1), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4), 3(5), 4 and 22 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 120B, 386, 387, 506(1) and 506(2) - Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 70 - Organized crime - Applicability of stringent laws - Requirement of "continuing unlawful activity" - Whether more than one charge-sheet is required against an individual - Held, requirement of charge-sheet is qua the organized crime syndicate and not qua individual members - Nexus of an individual with the syndicate is the crux of the term "continuing unlawful activity". (Paras 24.3, 24.4, 24.8)

(B) Investigation and Sanction - Inclusion of name in charge-sheet - When investigation against an accused remains incomplete and accused absconds, inclusion of name in column meant for pending investigation is permissible in law - No mandatory prior sanction is required until investigation is complete and specific role is substantiated - Procedural action taken to secure presence of absconder deemed consistent with law. (Paras 25.4, 25.5)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner approached the court to quash criminal proceedings, including warrants, proclamation orders, and travel restrictions, initiated for offences under special penal legislation and the criminal code. The petitioner contended that no cognizable offence or charge-sheet was registered against them in the preceding decade, and challenged the validity of being labeled an absconder.

Findings of Court:
The materials collected indicated the petitioner was an active member and participant in managing financial operations for the syndicate. The court observed that the statutory criteria for "continuing unlawful activity" must be interpreted in the context of the syndicate as a whole, rather than isolated through individual criminal history.

Issues: Whether the definition of "continuing unlawful activity" necessitates individual criminal antecedents, and if the initial absence of prior sanction or the inclusion of an absconding accused in a charge-sheet renders proceedings invalid.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that for invoking the special statute, individual criminal history is not the sole determinant; nexus with an organized crime syndicate and involvement in its unlawful activities are definitive. Charge-sheet requirements are satisfied if the syndicate meets the criteria for continuing unlawful activity, and administrative procedures against an absconder following due process are sustainable.

Result: Application dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual and procedural background of gujctoc act fir initiation (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. arguments concerning the threshold requirements for invoking organized crime legislation (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
3. court's re-framing of the core legal question under gujctoc act (Para 22 , 23 , 24)
4. analysis of evidentiary nexus and procedural legality of investigation steps (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
5. dismissal of quashing petition due to lack of merit (Para 33)

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. RULE returnable forthwith. Learned APP Mr.Manan Maheta waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent – State.

2. The present application has been preferred by the applicant through his father (i.e. the Power of Attorney holder of the applicant) under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to invoke the inherent powers of this Court, praying for the following reliefs :

“(A) Quash and set aside the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner, including deletion of the petitioner's name from Column No. 2 of the charge-sheet;

 quashing of the portions and averments declaring the petitioner as an absconder in the FIR registered with Jamnagar Police Station bearing C.R.No.11202008202186 of 2024 dated 15.10.2020, for the offences punishable under Sections 3 (1), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4), 3(5) and 4 of the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organized Crime Act, 2015 , read with Sections 120B, 386, 387, 506(1) and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code;

and consequentially, to quash all incidental and consequential proceedings arising therefrom, including:

 the Non-Bailable Warrants issued against the petitioner;

 the order declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed offender; and

 the Look Out Circular (LOC) opened against the petitioner;

 proceedings under section 174(A) IPC, if any, initiated against the Petitioner.

in relation to the above FIR and the trial whereof is pending before the Court of Shri J.R.Shah, Learned Special Judge (GUJCTOC), Rajkot, Gujarat (Court Code: GJ01042) vide Criminal Case No. GCTOC-02/2021, Next Hearing date of Which is: 03/02/2026;

B) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the operation and execution of all adverse proceeding including:

 the Non-Bailable Warrants issued against the petitioner;

 the order declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed offender;

 the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against the petitioner; and

 all other adverse and coercive proceedings/orders passed against the petitioner including 174(A) IPC Proceedings.

in connection with FIR bearing C.R. No.11202008202186 of 2024 dated 15.10.2020, registered with Police Station City 'A' Division, District Jamnagar, for the offences punishable under the GUJCTOC Act, 2015 read with the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code, and the trial whereof is pending before the Court of Shri J.R.Shah, Learned Special Judge (GUJCTOC), Rajkot, Gujarat (Court Code: GJ01042) vide Criminal Case No GCTOC-02/2021, Next Hearing date of Which is: 03/02/2026;

(C) Pass such other and further orders as may be deemed fit, just and proper in the interest of justice, equity and fair play, in the facts and circumstancs of the present case.”

3. The impugned FIR bearing C.R. No.11202008202186 of 2020 came to be registered on 15.10.2020 before the City ‘A’ Division Police Station, Jamnagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 3 (1), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4), 3(5) and 4 of the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organized Crime Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the GUJCTOC Act’) read with Sections 120B, 386, 387, 506(1) and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code.

FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE :

4. It is the case of the prosecution that on 30.09.2020, the Superintendent of Police, Jamnagar, had received secret inputs that one Jaysukh Muljibhai Ranpariya @ Jayesh Patel is operating an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top