R/SCR.A/5030/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/06/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (DIRECTION) NO. 5030 of 2025 ========================================================== KARANBHAI NATHABHAI MAKWANA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: MR PRATIK Y JASANI(5325) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR MANAN MAHETA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 25/06/2025 ORAL ORDER Present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India r/W.528 of BNSS is filed seeking quashment of impugned communication dated 24.12.2024 addressed by the respondent No.3 to the petitioner. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the investigating agency has not properly investigated the offence and without approval of higher officials, the application of the petitioner came to be dismissed and when he approached the authority thereafter, subsequently, the respondent authorities sought permission from the higher-ups. Hence, he has requested to allow the present petition. Learned APP has opposed the present petition on the ground that application of the petitioner came to be filed in view of initiation of civil proceeding. Nonetheless, subsequently, after a detailed inquiry, the application of the petitioner came to be filed and he was already informed about the same. Page 1 of 3 R/SCR.A/5030/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/06/2025 Refuting the said submission, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that he has not filed civil suit and based on wrong notion and interpretation his application came to be filed. Heard learned advocate for respective parties and perused the record. It is needless to say that whatever may be the investigation or differences of opinion between the parties, once application is filed then the petitioner is having alternative statutory remedy to challenge the said opinion / decision but the petitioner instead has directly approached this Court challenging the said communication dated 24.12.2024 without resorting to the alternative statutory remedy available to the petitioner and hence, as per the law laid down by this Court in the case of Bhoomi Exim & Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. (SCR.A/12711/2023, dtd. 07.10.2023); Arun Shankar Shukla Vs. State of U.P & Ors, reported in 1999 (6) SCC 146 and Hamida Vs. Rashid alias Rasheed and Ors. reported in (2008) 1 SCC 474, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hamida (Supra) has been pleased to observe in Head-note B as under: “B. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – S.482 – Inherent powers of High Court – Scope – Limits of – Alternative remedy – Availability of – Effect – Held, has to be exercised sparingly with circumspection and in rare cases and that too to correct patent illegalities or when some miscarriage of justice is done – Practice of High Courts in entertaining petitions under S.482, when there was an effective alternative remedy available, deprecated – Ends of justice would be better served if valuable time of the Court is spent in hearing those appeals rather than entertaining petitions under S.482 CrPC at an interlocutory stage which are often filed with some oblique motive in order to circumvent the prescribed procedure, as in the instant case, or to delay the R/SCR.A/5030/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/06/2025 trial which enable the accused to win over the witnesses by money or muscle power or they may become disinterested in giving evidence, ultimately resulting in miscarriage of justice (paras 7, 8 and 13)” It is also appropriate to refer to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manoj Vasudev Sompura Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2024 (3) GLR 1737 and Sharad Jethalal Savla Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. in CRMA No.19862/2025. In view of the above decisions as well as the fact that statutory remedy is available under law, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition in exercise of power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and Sec.528 of BNSS. Accordingly, present petition is dismissed. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the matter. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file appropriate proceedings before appropriate forum. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.) Ajay Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: AJAY CHANDRAN MENON(HC00939), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 25/06/2025 18:48:28