JUDGMENT :

VIMAL K. VYAS, J.

1. By way of preferring the present application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the applicant seeks to invoke the inherent powers of this Court praying to quash and set-aside the First Information Report being C.R. No.11208055250432 of 2025 registered with the DCB Police Station, Rajkot city, for the offences punishable under Sections 3(2), 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii) and 3(4) of the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organized Crime Act, 2015 (for short, the ‘GUJCTOC Act’), as well as all other consequential proceedings arising pursuant thereto.

2. Learned advocate Mr.M.R.Saiyed appearing for the applicant-accused has submitted that there is not an iota of evidence against the present applicant-accused, and he has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence. He has further submitted that for the alleged incident that had occurred in the early morning on 29.10.2025 near Pragati Hospital situated on Mangla Road between the members of two gang leaders, namely, Samir @ Murgho Yasinbhai Pathan and Rajpalsinh @ Rajo Sudhirsinh Jadeja, the present applicant, who is not even named in the said offence, has been falsely implicated in the impugned FIR lodged for the commission of offence punishable under the provisions of the GUJCTOC Act.

3. Learned advocate Mr.Saiyed has submitted that the present applicant was not present at the time when the alleged incident of firing between the members of the two gangs had occurred. He has further submitted that the present applicant had not even participated in the alleged offence and his name was also not mentioned in the FIR bearing C.R. No.11208050231034 of 2025 lodged by Shri S.M.Rana, P.S.I., A-Division Police Station.

4. Learned advocate Mr.Saiyed, while taking this Court through the factual matrix of the case, has submitted that it is alleged in the impugned FIR that the present applicant is a member of the organized crime syndicate, whose kingpin is Samir @ Murgho Yasinbhai Pathan, and against the said syndicate, more than 37 offences have been registered in Rajkot and other districts.

5. Learned advocate Mr.Saiyed has submitted that the present applicant is not a member of any syndicate gang and that no offence has been registered against him during the period from 2021 till 2025. However, he has submitted that out of the three previous offences registered against the present applicant, he has been acquitted in two cases and one case is pending, wherein the record is not available. He has submitted that the present applicant has been arraigned as an accused solely on the basis of clubbing of the offences.

6. Learned advocate Mr.Saiyed has further submitted that taking into consideration the entire material on record, there is not an iota of evidence to suggest that the applicant is, in any way, connected with the said organized crime syndicate. He has, therefore, submitted that for the offences registered in the past against the applicant, he cannot be tried twice. It is submitted that at the time of the alleged triggering incident, the applicant was neither present nor participated in the alleged offence, and he was not even named in the F.I.R. Furthermore, it is submitted that the present applicant is not connected with or has nothing to do with the said syndicate. Learned advocate has submitted that though there is no evidence to suggest the nexus or involvement of the present applicant with the said syndicate, he has been falsely implicated in the impugned FIR by clubbing of the offences.

7. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of T.P.Gopalakrishnan vs. State of Kerala, reported in (2022) 14 SCC 323, learned advocate Mr.Saiyed has submitted that the present applicant cannot be prosecuted or punished for the same offence, more than once. He has, therefore, urged that considering the aforesaid, the present application may be allowed and the impugned FIR as well as all other consequential proceedings arising pu