Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 11740

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 1740 of 2022

HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER

NILESH TAKHUJI KHANT
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

Appearance:
MR MEHUL SHARAD SHAH(773) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR BHARAT K DAVE(246) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR.RONAK RAWAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1

CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER

Date : 07/04/2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mehul Sharad Shah
For the Respondents: Bharat K Dave, Ronak Rawal

Quashing of criminal proceedings under inherent powers is mandated when an FIR lacks the essential elements of the alleged offences, is based on delayed or secondary information without corroborative evidence, and is clearly instituted under circumstances that suggest an abuse of the legal process.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323, 504 and 506 - Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) - Quashing of criminal proceedings - Necessary existence of ingredient - Guidelines governing exercise of inherent powers were summarized - Inherent powers are to be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. (Paras 3, 5)

(B) Criminal Law - Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace - Section 504 of IPC - Mere abuse does not necessarily constitute an offence - Essential element is an act or conduct amounting to intentional insult - It is necessary to identify specific abusive words to determine if they amount to intentional insult within the provisions of law. (Paras 3.3, 4)

(C) Criminal Law - Criminal intimidation - Section 506 of IPC - Necessity to establish intention at the time of the event to cause alarm to the complainant - In absence of specific ingredients and where allegations are absurd or inherently improbable, the proceedings are liable to be set aside. (Paras 3.3, 4.1, 5.1)

Facts of the case:
A complaint was filed alleging that a group of people had insulted and assaulted a complainant and his relative during a procession. The complainant initially named specific individuals in the report, but the present applicant was not among them. The applicant was later implicated nearly three weeks after the initial report based solely on a statement from a relative of the complainant, without contemporaneous medical or independent evidence naming him. The applicant, a public servant, challenged this subsequent inclusion, claiming it was an abuse of process.

Findings of Court:
The court noted that the medical reports and initial documentation did not substantiate the involvement of the applicant. The delayed implication through a third-party statement, without further investigative support, rendered the allegations against the applicant groundless and demonstrated a clear case of harassment.

Issues: Whether the registration and subsequent investigation of the complaint against the applicant satisfy the legal threshold for criminal prosecution, and whether the court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings due to an abuse of the legal process.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that where the allegations made in the report, taken at their face value, do not prima facie constitute the alleged offences and appear to be motivated by extraneous or malicious factors, the court is obligated to intervene under its inherent powers to prevent the misuse of justice machinery.

Result: Application allowed; the complaint, the ensuing investigation, and all consequential proceedings are quashed and set aside.

JUDGMENT

Approved for Reporting	Yes	No
		✔

1. The present application is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashment of the FIR being 11216007210487/2021 registered with Gandhinagar Sector 21 Police Station, District: Gandhinagar for the offence punishable under section 323, 504, 506(2) of IPC and section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2) (va) of Atrocity Act. The first informant-respondent no.2 stated in the FIR lodged on 23.11.2021 that on 20.11.2021 there was a marriage procession of the friend namely Jayeshji Mahotji Khant, and in that procession the complainant and his brother namely Jeel had went and participated. At that point of time, the accused persons who are named in the FIR, residing at the same village in Khantvas came and the complainant and his brother were abused and beaten with regard to the caste of the complainant and asked not to participate in the marriage procession as well as assaulted by fist blows. As per the recital of FIR the complainant and his brother were feeling pain and therefore they took treatment on 21.11.2021 in the Civil Hospital at Gandhinagar as well as the accused were belonging to the same village at that that point of time they decided not to lodge any complaint however, subsequently, FIR came to be lodged as they were under threats of the accused persons who are named in the FIR. The same is subject matter of challenge before this Court, at the instance of the present applicant who was not arraigned as accused in the FIR but was subsequently implicated on the basis of the statement of the father of the complainant namely Rajnikant Muljibhai Bansal dated 11.12.2021.

2. Heard learned advocate Ms.Aesha Gandhi for the applicant, learned advocate Mr Bharat Dave for the complainant and learned APP Ms.Vrunda Shah for the State.

2.1. It is submitted by learned advocate Ms.Aesha Gandhi that complaint was lodged after the period of three days from the date of so called offence. In the complaint, the complainant has specifically stated that accused are belonging to the same village and staying in the particular area therefore, they initially decided not to lodge a complaint. It is submitted that subsequently statement of the father of the complainant was recorded after a period of more than 20 days implicating the present applicant instead of accused no.1 namely Chanduji Khant. It is submitted that thereafter no statement of the complainant or his brother who are victim was recorded by the investigating officer and the Investigating Officer straightaway filed charge sheet. It is submitted that the present applicant is serving as Lok Rakshak, the complainant and his brother who are staying in the same village did not implicate present applicant at the first point of time when the FIR was lodged however, at the instance of the father of the complainant the charge sheet was filed against the present applicant. It is submitted that even otherwise also from the bare reading of FIR does not disclose any cognizable offence against the applicant and in that background FIR is nothing but misuse of process of law and the same is required to be set aside.

2.2. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Bharat Dave, appearing for the complainant, has stated that the present application is filed on 12.01.2022 without disclosing that the charge sheet which is filed on previous day on 11.01.2022. it is submitted by learned advocate Mr.Dave that this Court has passed the order after a month on filing of application protecting applicant that no coercive steps be taken. It is submitted that when charge sheet is filed by suppressing the subject material before this Court the applicant has filed the application and got the interim relief. It is submitted learned advocate Mr.Dave that was by the complainant being Misc. Application No.1/2024 for vacating interim relief this Court has stayed the further proceedings of the learned trial court vide order dated 12.03.2024.

2.3. It is

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 11740

Quashing of criminal proceedings under inherent powers is mandated when an FIR lacks the essential elements of the alleged offences, is based on delayed or secondary information without corroborative evidence, and is clearly instituted under circumstances that suggest an abuse of the legal process.

Cases Referred (1)