Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Guj) 903

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
M. K. THAKKER, J.
Bhargrajsinh Raghurajsinh Jadeja – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat And Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Misc.Application (For Quashing & Set Aside Fir/Order) No. 8431 Of 2026, R/Criminal Misc.Application No. 8472 Of 2026, R/Criminal Misc.Application No. 8500 Of 2026
Decided On : 20-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For The Appellant : Ld. Sr. Adv. Mr. Devang Vyas With Mr Ruchit J Vyas
For The Respondent: Mr Ronak Raval, Addl. Public Prosecutor

The High Court should not interdict an investigation at the threshold by conducting a mini-trial if the complaint prima facie discloses a cognizable offense, as police investigation is a statutory duty that courts must not obstruct unless the proceedings are inherently improbable.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of First Information Report - Inherent powers of High Court - Exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction - Power to quash criminal proceedings is an exceptional power to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection - Judicial interference at the investigation stage is not warranted if the complaint prima facie discloses a cognizable offense - High Court must not conduct a 'mini-trial' or evaluate evidence in detail to test the truthfulness of allegations at the threshold - Investigation of an offense is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the police department. (Paras 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.6, 12)

(B) Criminal Procedure - Investigation - Duty of Police - Courts should avoid passing orders that impede or stall the statutory powers of the police to investigate - Evaluation of disputed questions of fact or genuineness of allegations at the preliminary stage is impermissible - Criminal proceedings should be allowed to continue when allegations are not inherently improbable and disclose primary ingredients of an offense. (Paras 10.2, 10.4, 10.5)

Facts of the case:
Applications were filed seeking the quashing of multiple registered complaints on the grounds of delay, vagueness, lack of specific role attributed to the accused, and allegations of personal vendetta. The applicant contended that the proceedings were an abuse of the process of law and argued that the delayed filing of current complaints was indicative of malicious intent. The state maintained that investigations were ongoing, supported by call detail records suggesting criminal intimidation.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the investigation into cognizable offenses is a statutory duty of the police. Given that the investigations were at a nascent stage and the complaints prima facie alleged offenses, the court ruled against interference. It determined that the veracity or genuineness of allegations is for the investigating agency to establish and not for the court to decide upon during the pre-trial stage.

Issues: The primary issues were whether the High Court should exercise its inherent powers to quash criminal complaints at the investigation stage based on alleged delays and mala fide intent, and whether it could conduct a preliminary evaluation of evidence to determine the truthfulness of the allegations.

Ratio Decidendi: Inherent powers are to be exercised sparingly and only in cases where the complaint does not disclose any cognizable offense; where the material collected during investigation supports the allegations, the court must refrain from obstructing the investigative process.

Result: Applications dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

M. K. THAKKER, J.

1 Since the issues raised in these applications are similar, they are being decided by this common judgment. The facts of Criminal Misc. Application No.8472 of 2026 are taken for the purpose of adjudication.

2 The present application has been filed seeking quashment of the impugned FIRs registered with Gondal City ‘B’ Division Police Station, Rajkot, being C.R. Nos.11213094260216 of 2016, 11213015260251 of 2026 and 11213016260225 of 2026.

3 Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Devang Vyas, assisted by learned advocate Mr. Ruchit Vyas, for the applicants and learned APP Mr. Ronak Raval for the respondent–State.

4 Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Vyas submits that the impugned FIRs, having been lodged after considerable delay, are nothing but an abuse of process and amount to harassment of the applicant. It is contended that the FIRs are vague in nature and do not contain any specific allegations attributing a definite role, overt act, or participation to the applicant, but merely level general and omnibus accusations, which do not satisfy the threshold requirements for initiating criminal prosecution. Referring to the FIR under challenge in Criminal Misc. Application No.8431 of 2016, it is submitted that the allegations therein indicate that the accused persons, who are known to the complainant and reside in the same locality, had entered into certain financial transactions with the complainant over a period of time. It is alleged that the complainant was induced into such financial arrangements on the pretext of business and personal dealings, pursuant to which monies were advanced on multiple occasions. It is further alleged that on 16.10.2024, the accused persons called the complainant, used abusive language, extended threats of dire consequences, and attempted to intimidate him so as to deter him from demanding repayment of his dues. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Vyas submits that the delay in lodging the FIR has been sought to be explained by alleging that the applicant is a headstrong person with criminal antecedents, however, such explanation is untenable. According to the learned senior advocate Mr. Vyas, the complainant claims that due to fear and the alleged absconding of the applicant, he lodged the FIR belatedly after gathering courage. It is contended that such delayed and vague allegations cannot form the basis of criminal prosecution and, therefore, the impugned FIRs deserve to be quashed.

4.1. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Vyas submits that, so far as Criminal Misc. Application No.8472 of 2026 is concerned, the allegations pertain to land bearing Survey No.1526 of 2002 situated at Gondal City, admeasuring approximately 1500 square yards, which is claimed to be ancestral property of the complainant’s family, having devolved upon his father and uncles. It is submitted by the learned senior advocate Mr. Vyas that the uncles of the complainant had sold their respective shares in the said property to one Chandulal Bhagwanji Patel, and thereafter the present applicant, along with accused No.2 – Imran Jikarbhai Nursumar, purchased the said property. On the strength of such purchase, it is alleged that the applicants have asserted rights over the property and have been pressurizing the complainant and his family to vacate the same.

4.2. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Vyas submits that, so far as Criminal Misc. Application No.8500 of 2026 is concerned, the FIR has been lodged by the complainant, Dhanjibhai Ravjibhai Bhundiya, who claims to be the owner of land bearing Survey No.251 paiki Plot No.5 situated at village Khandav, purchased by him in the year 2007. It is alleged that in the year 2018, the applicant approached the complainant with a proposal to purchase a portion of the said land admeasuring approximately 125 square meters for the purpose of installing a mobile tower, for which a consideration of Rs.50,000/- was agreed upon, along with an assurance of providing employment to one of the complainant’s fam