R/CR.MA/10037/2014 ORDER DATED: 17/09/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 10037 of 2014 ========================================================== ARJANBHAI FOGABHAI KESHWALA & ANR. Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance: MS PRATIBHA KUMAVAT for MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2 MR CHINTAN DAVE, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1 RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI Date : 17/09/2025 ORAL ORDER 1. Filing of FIR being CR No. II – 20 of 2014 before the Miyana Marine Police Station, Porbandar for the offences punishable u/s 4, 4(1) of the Mines and Minerals Act and under the provisions of the Gujarat Mineral Rules, 2005 has been assailed by way of filing this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the petitioners inter alia on the ground mentioned in the petition memo. 2. It is sought to be submitted by learned advocate Ms. Kumavat for the petitioners that other accused have been tried by the learned JMFC, Porbandar in Criminal Case No.2894 of 2014. The trial has resulted into acquittal of the other accused. The evidence against the petitioners herein is R/CR.MA/10037/2014 ORDER DATED: 17/09/2025 alike the evidence against other accused. Second limb of submission made by learned advocate Ms. Kumavat is that section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act bars the learned trial Court from taking cognizance of the offence except in case of filing private complaint. She also submitted that even on this ground, questioned FIR does not survive. 3. Learned APP in the facts and circumstances of the case requests to pass necessary orders. 4. The submissions canvassed by learned advocate Ms. Kumavat for the petitioners deserve consideration on the ground that the learned trial Court has acquitted other accused in Criminal Case No.2894 of 2014, as the learned trial Court found that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against other accused from the angle beyond reasonable doubt. The petitioners are identically situated to that of other accused. The learned trial Court has also taken into consideration that the Court is legally prevented from taking cognizance in view of mandate of offence u/s 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act. 5. In the backdrop of above, this Court is of the opinion that continuation of proceedings against the petitioners are abuse of process of law. 6. In the case of State of Haryana Vs. B.Bhajanlal & ors., AIR 1992 SC 604, the Hon’ble Apex Court summed up the proposition of law, which reads as under:- R/CR.MA/10037/2014 ORDER DATED: 17/09/2025 “(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations ins the F.I.R. and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under S.156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of S.155(2) of the code. (3) Where, the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same donot disclose the commission of any offence and make out the case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under S.155(2) of the Code. (5) Whether, the allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint are sO absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where, there is an express legal bare engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) toi the institution and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for R/CR.MA/10037/2014 ORDER DATED: 17/09/2025 wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." 6.1 The findings of the Hon’ble Apex Court in para 1,3 and 7 are attracted in the present case. In view of above, present petition deserves consideration. 7. In the result, present petition is allowed and impugned FIR being CR No. II – 20 of 2014 before the Miyana Marine Police Station, Porbandar and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted. (J. C. DOSHI,J) SHEKHAR P. BARVE Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: SHEKHAR PRAFULBHAI BARVE(HC00200), Principal Pvt. Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 17/09/2025 17:36:23