The court will not exercise its judicial discretion to quash an FIR under Article 226 when a prima facie case is established and the investigation is at a nascent stage, particularly where the petitioner was the primary facilitator of the alleged fraud.

JUDGMENT

1. By filing the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is praying for quashing and setting aside of the F.I.R. being C.R. No.11191023260202 of 2026 registered with Vadaj Police Station, Ahmedabad City for the offence punishable under the provisions of Sections 316(2), 318(4) and 54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

2. Learned advocate Shri Dhruv R. Thakkar appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner herein has not played any role in commission of offence. The only role attributed to the present petitioner in commission of offence is to the effect that he had relegated the first informant to the other co-accused for the purpose of visa to Finland. Except this, no other overt act has been attributed to the present petitioner in commission of the present offence. He further submitted that all the money, which has been transferred by the complainant, had gone to the account of other co-accused and the petitioner has not received any money from the first informant. He also submitted that on the contrary the petitioner herein has sent a Notice to the other co-accused on 26.11.2025 alleging the fraud against him and it is the other co- accused, who had actually defrauded the first informant. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner also referred to the reply given by the other co-accused to the Notice given by the petitioner and submitted that the reply given to the Notice indicates that it was the other co-accused, who had been solely responsible for the present offence.

He, therefore, submitted to allow the present petition and set aside the F.I.R. in question.

3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the present petition inter-alia contending that the bare perusal of the F.I.R. indicates strong prima facie case against the petitioner for commission of offence in question. He submitted that it was the present petitioner to whom the first informant contacted at the first point of time for the purpose of visa and all financial transactions had taken place between the first informant and the present petitioner. The investigation of the offence is still in progress. He, therefore, submitted to dismiss the present petition.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Rishi B. Barot appearing for learned advocate Mr. Subhas G. Barot submitted that he has received instruction to appear on behalf of the complainant. He has also submitted to dismiss the present petition. He may be permitted to file his Vakalatnama before the Registry.

5. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the material available on record.

6. Before addressing the matter on merits, the conduct on the part of the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner is required to be taken note of. When the matter was called out for hearing, learned advocate Mr. Rishi B. Barot submitted that he had received instruction to appear on behalf of the complainant and prayed for time. This Court was inclined to adjourn the matter upon the request of learned advocate Shri Barot. However, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner kept insistening for interim relief without hearing the matter only on the ground that the learned advocate appearing for the complainant was seeking an adjournment. It was only upon the insistence of the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, this Court has taken up the matter for hearing. After the arguments of learned advocate appearing for the petitioner were heard in detail, this Court has also heard