R/CR.MA/19650/2015(GJHC240508072015) JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 19650 of 2015 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL ================================================ Approved for Reporting Yes No √ ================================================ NARENDRA @ PAPPUBHAI ISHVARDAS JADVANI (SINDHI) & ORS. Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ================================================ Appearance: MR SUMIT B SIKARWAR(5991) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4 MR.MOHD.JUBER PATHAN(7071) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4 MR YUVRAJ BRAHMBHATT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ================================================ CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL Date : 11/09/2026 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (the Code) is filed by the applicants praying to quash and set aside the FIR being C.R. No. I-129 of 2015, dated R/CR.MA/19650/2015(GJHC240508072015) JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2026 30.06.2015, registered with Nadiad Town Police Station, Nadiad, District: Kheda for the offence punishable under Sections 376(d), 328, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 66(e) of the Information Technology Act. 2. Though served, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent No. 2 - de facto complainant. The matter is old, of 2015 and hence, the Court proceeded with the matter in accordance with law. 3. It is pertinent to note that by an order dated 09.01.2025, this application came to be not pressed qua applicant Nos. 1 and 2 in view of the fact that during the pendency of the present proceedings, the trial qua them was proceeded and eventually, culminated into acquittal of the applicant Nos. 1 and 2. Accordingly, this application is now heard qua applicant Nos. 3 and 4 only. 4. Heard, learned advocate Mr. Bhadrish S. Raju for the applicants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent – State. 4.1 At the outset, the learned advocate for the applicant would submit, without entering into the merits of the case, that this application for quashing was preferred by all the accused persons, however, during the pendency of the application, the applicant R/CR.MA/19650/2015(GJHC240508072015) JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2026 Nos. 1 and 2 came to be arrested and Charge-sheet was filed and trial Court proceeded with the trial qua them, however, in view of the protection granted by this Court, the trial could not be proceeded against the present applicant Nos. 3 and 4. It is further submitted that by a judgment and order dated 04.05.2018 passed in Sessions Case No. 107 of 2015 by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiad, the applicant Nos. 1 and 2 came to be acquitted. A copy of the said judgment and order of acquittal is on record. He submitted that though serious allegations are levelled in the FIR, however, after full-fledged trial, the applicant Nos. 1 and 2, out of whom, applicant No. 1 is arraigned as accused No. 1 in the FIR, came to be acquitted by the trial Court concerned. 4.2 The learned advocate for the applicant would submit that even otherwise, if the deposition of the de facto complainant, which is on record at Annexure ‘E’ to this application, is taken into consideration, she has not supported the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile and in the circumstances, in the submission of the learned advocate for the applicants, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the criminal proceedings against the present applicants. 4.3 The learned advocate for the applicants would submit that similar types of offences have been registered against several persons by the de facto complainant which are culminated into the acquittal of them and thus, he submits that the de facto complainant R/CR.MA/19650/2015(GJHC240508072015) JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2026 is in habit of filing such false and frivolous litigation. He submits that papers of some such instances are also on record. 4.4 Thus, making above submissions, the learned advocate for the applicants would urge to allow this application by quashing and setting aside the impugned FIR as well as all consequential proceedings qua the applicants (Nos. 3 and 4). 5. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent – State, while opposing this application, would submit that merely because the applicant Nos. 1 and 2 are acquitted, who are acquitted after full-fledged trial, the FIR against the present applicants cannot be quashed, more particularly when, serious allegations are made in the FIR. Thus, he urged that this application may not be entertained and it is requested to be rejected. 6. Heard, the learned advocates for the parties present and perused the material on record. 6.1 At the outset, it is apt to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia & Another etc. v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Others Others, AIR 1988 SC 709, wherein, the Court held as under: “The legal position is well-settled that when a prosecution at the R/CR.MA/19650/2015(GJHC240508072015) JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2026 initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage. A case of breach of trust may be both a civil wrong and criminal offence. But there would be certain situations where it would predominantly be a civil wrong and may or may not amount to criminal offence. The instant case is one of that type where, if at all, the facts may constitute a civil wrong and the ingredients of the criminal offence are wanting”. (Para 7) 6.2 Thus, as held by the Apex Court, where the chances of conviction are bleak, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, and the Court may, while taking into consideration the special facts of a case, also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage. 6.3 In the instant case, two eventualities are crucial, which are in favour of the applicants (Nos. 3 and 4) and against the prosecution, that is to say, firstly, the applicant Nos. 1 and 2 herein namely Narendra @ Pappubhai Ishvardas Jadvani (Sindhi)and Kamleshbhai Chunibhai Patel, qua whom the trial proceeded, came to be acquitted after full-fledged trial in Sessions Case No. 107 of R/CR.MA/19650/2015(GJHC240508072015) JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2026 2015 by the judgment and order dated 04.05.2018 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiad; and secondly, if the deposition of the de facto complainant – respondent No. 2 herein, which is available on record, is perused, she herself has not supported the case of the prosecution and declared hostile. She was cross-examined by the State but nothing fruitful could be culled out from her cross-examination. 6.4 Further, record also reveals that the de facto complainant is in habit of filing such complaints and that, prosecution against those persons also stated to have been culminated into acquittal. 6.5 Thus, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, in the considered opinion of the Court, forcing the parties to endure a full-fledged criminal trial, would be an exercise in futility, more particularly, when the prosecturix herself has not supported the case of the prosecution. 6.6 In fine, this application succeeds and is allowed, accordingly. FIR being C.R. No. I-129 of 2015, dated 30.06.2015, registered with Nadiad Town Police Station, Nadiad, District: Kheda for the offence punishable under Sections 376(d), 328, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 66(e) of the Information Technology Act, is hereby quashed and set aside qua the present applicants (Nos. 3 and 4) with all consequential proceedings emanating from the said FIR. Page 6 of 7 R/CR.MA/19650/2015(GJHC240508072015) JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2026 7. Rule is made absolute, accordingly. Direct service is permitted. [ P. M. Raval, J. ] hiren/11tss11926 Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: HIREN VIRENDRABHAI MER(HC00351), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 11/09/2026 14:53:49