IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 26891 of 2025 ================================================================

ASHOKBHAI BHAKABHAI RABARI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

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

Appearance:

MR NIRUPAM NANAVATY with MR VIJAY H NANGESH(3981) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR MANAN MAHETA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR MANGAL V GADHAVI(11922) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ================================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL K. VYAS Date : 12/03/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. RULE returnable forthwith. Learned APP Mr.Manan Maheta waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent no.1 – State and learned advocate Mr.Mangal V.Gadhvi waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent no.2 – complainant.

2. By way of preferring the present application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the present applicant-accused seeks to invoke the inherent powers of this Court, praying to quash and set-aside the First Information Report No.11198047251252 of 2025 lodged before the Sihor Police Station, District Bhavnagar, for the offences punishable under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and under Sections 40 and 42 of the Gujarat Money Lenders Act, 2011.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased (i.e. the father of the complainant) had borrowed an amount of Rs.20,000=00 from the present applicant in the year 2020, and he was regularly paying interest on it to the present applicant. It is alleged that though the deceased had repaid the principal amount, the applicant was further demanding Rs.30,000=00 from the deceased, due to which the deceased was remaining under constant stress and tension. It is the case of the prosecution that the applicant was frequently calling the deceased and demanding the money. It is alleged that due to the torture exerted upon the deceased by the applicant regarding repayment of his dues, the deceased took the drastic step of committing suicide by hanging himself in his house.

4. Heard learned senior advocate Mr.Nirupam D.Nanavaty assisted by Mr.Vijay Nangesh, learned advocate appearing for the applicant-accused, learned APP Mr.Manan Maheta appearing for the respondent no. 1 – State and learned advocate Mr.Mangal V.Gadhvi appearing for the respondent no.2 – Complainant.

5. Learned senior advocate Mr.Nirupam D.Nanavaty has submitted that the FIR lodged by the first informant is palpably false and there is not an iota of evidence to implicate the present applicant-accused with the alleged offence. The prosecution has remained silent as to what had happened soon before the incident. Learned advocate has further submitted that the proximity between the alleged act of instigation by the applicant- accused and the commission of suicide by the deceased has not been proved. He has further submitted that except the statement of the complainant (who is the son of the deceased), there is no other evidence to connect the present applicant with the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the complainant has made vague, omnibus and general allegations against the applicant- accused, and the FIR, even if it is considered at its face value, the same could not even establish the offence as alleged in the FIR.

6. Learned senior advocate Mr.Nanavaty, while taking this Court through the factual matrix of the case, has submitted that on bare perusal of the impugned FIR, it clearly appears that the only allegation levelled against the present applicant is that he had demanded repayment of the loan amount and the interest thereon. It is submitted that there are no allegations against the present applicant that he had administered any threat to the deceased or had used abusive language or incited or provoked the deceased soon before committing suicide by the deceased. It is submit