R/SCR.A/10514/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 10514 of 2025 ========================================================== JAGDISHBHAI MANUBHAI SONI & ORS. Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance: MR KAIVAL D PATEL(13892) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3 MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 25/07/2025 ORAL ORDER 1. RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent State. 2. By way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the BNSS, the petitioners have prayed to quash and set aside the FIR No.169 of 2009 registered with Kuvadava Road Police Station, Rajkot and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 3. Learned advocate for the petitioners submits that the applicant has nothing to do with the offence and he is falsely implicated in it. The learned advocate for the petitioners (Accused Nos. 4 to 6) submitted that the petitioners are neither named in the FIR nor referred to in the chargesheet, and no specific allegations or overt acts have been attributed to them in connection with the alleged offence. There is no material suggesting their involvement or any shared intent or common R/SCR.A/10514/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025 object relating to the alleged offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC, which require mens rea or dishonest intention. It is further submitted that the complainant is merely a transport agent and not the owner of the goods allegedly misappropriated. The actual owner, Cotton Ginning and Pressing Industries Pvt. Ltd., Bombay, has not filed any complaint, nor is there any authorisation empowering the complainant to initiate criminal proceedings on behalf of the said company. Therefore, the complaint lacks legal standing and is not maintainable. The entire chargesheet relies solely on the statement of the complainant’s brother, and even the FIR states that the truck faced a mechanical issue. It si submitted that allegedly misappropriated goods (140 cotton bales) were recovered intact on the same day, thereby negating any wrongful loss or dishonest intent. Thus, the prosecution is based on assumptions without any independent or credible evidence. The continuation of proceedings against the petitioners would amount to a misuse of the legal process. Hence, the present application deserves to be allowed. In this regard the learned advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hriday Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar, (2000) 4 SCC 168) and P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, (2002) SCC 578 and Vakil Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, (2009) 3 SCC 355. 4. The learned APP has strongly opposed the present application, stating that the trial is in progress and the prosecution is ready to expedite the matter. The learned APP has requested that appropriate directions be issued to expedite the R/SCR.A/10514/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025 trial at the earliest, as sufficient material has already been collected by the investigating agency and the charge-sheet has been filed. Therefore, the present petition may be dismissed. 5. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the documents on record, it appears that the complainant is a transport commission agent operating under the name Anjali Road Lines, and has been handling transportation for Kotak Ginning & Pressing Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai for several years. On 29.09.2009, the complainant received a call from one Nileshbhai, who offered his trailer (No. GJ-12-Z-4676) to transport 140 cotton bales worth Rs.15,40,000 from Priya Ginning Mill (Kupadva) to Mundra, for an agreed freight of 8,120. The trailer was loaded on ₹ 30.09.2009 and dispatched in the evening but did not reach its destination. On making inquiries, the complainant learned that the truck never reached Mundra. Further investigation revealed that the truck number and owner were fake, and the trailer was later found with the goods at Jay Jalaram Ginning, Harij. It is alleged that the accused forged the number plate, misrepresented facts, and dishonestly diverted the goods, thereby committing offences under Sections 406, 420, and 114 of the IPC. 6. It is an undisputed fact that the applicants are known to each other and were fully aware of their actions. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 and the present applicants were friends and were actively involved in the alleged offence. It is needless to state that in R/SCR.A/10514/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025 offences under Section 120(B) IPC, direct evidence of conspiracy is rarely available. Hence, the arguments advanced by the learned advocate pertain to the defence, which cannot be considered at this stage. Prima facie, the involvement of the accused and the elements of criminal breach of trust, cheating, and conspiracy are made out, and sufficient material has been collected during the course of investigation to support the same. 7. In view of the above, no case is made out to this Court exercise its discretion under Section 528 of the BNSS even otherwise the Court is not duty bound to hold the mini trial. In this regard the reference is made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Supriya Jain v. State of Haryana, reported AIR 2023 SC(Criminal) 1101. In the case of Ramveer Upadhyay and Anr. vs. State of U.P. and Anr. reported in 2022 OnLine SC 484, it is observed and held by the Apex Court that the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry into whether the evidence is reliable or not or whether there is reasonable possibility that the accusation would not be sustained and hold mini trial. 8. Further, criminal proceeding would have to proceed entirely based on the allegations made in a complaint or the evidence collected during the investigation. It is not justified to embark inquiry or to hold mini trial qua genuineness or credibility of the material collected during the investigation and Court cannot go into correctness or otherwise of the material R/SCR.A/10514/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025 collected by the prosecution. In this regard, reference is required to be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Manik B. vs. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy & Ors. reported in 2023 Live Law 642 (3 Judges’ Bench) as mini-trial is not permitted while exercising jurisdiction under Section of 528 of the BNSS. 9. This Court court deems it proper to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Neeharika Infrastruecture Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharshtra, reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 315 wherein, the Apex Court has observed that: “iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the ‘rarest of rare cases’. (The rarest of rare cases standard in its application for quashing under Section 528 BNSS is not to be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context of the death penalty, as explained previously by this Court); v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule;” 10. Further, while exercising the power of quashing, the Court must take into consideration the timing of the settlement. As discussed above, the offences alleged against the present petitioners are under Sections 406, 407, 420, and 120B of the IPC. In any case, the timing is not appropriate, as the present R/SCR.A/10514/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025 petition has been filed after a considerable lapse of more than 16 years, at a stage when the trial is already in progress and the recording of evidence is underway. In this regard, reference is required to be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab reported in (2014)6 SCC 466, this Court is not inclined to exercise discretion under Section 528 of the BNSS in favour of the petitioners. 11. It is necessary to consider whether the power conferred by the High Court under section 528 of the BNSS warranted. It is true that the powers under Section 528 of the BNSS are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise In this regard, this Court deems it fit to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation v. Aryan Singh reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 379. At the time of deciding quashing petition by this Court mini trial is not permissible. The Court has to consider whether a prima facie offence is made out or not. If a prima facie, offence is made out, then the Court should be conscious while exercising its power under Section 528 of the BNSS. Such power is to be exercised sparingly and only in cases where there is an abuse of the process of the Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. 12. Considering the aforesaid facts, the application stands dismissed. Observations made herein above are tentative in nature and will not cause any prejudice to either party at the trial. Learned Trial Court shall have to decide the allegations R/SCR.A/10514/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025 levelled in the complaint on its own merits without being influenced by any of the observations made in the order. 13. Before parting, it would not be out of place to mentioned that, as the complaint was filed in the year 2009 and the charge sheet was submitted in the year 2010, and since the trial is in progress and the case has been classified by the learned Trial Court under the "targeted cases" category, the learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial at the earliest, keeping in view the right of the accused to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is further directed that if any of the accused attempts to delay or obstruct the trial, the Trial Court may consider passing appropriate orders, including separating the trial and proceeding independently against such accused persons. 14. Rule is discharged. Direct service is permitted. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ALI Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: ISTAYAK ALI(HC01093), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 29/07/2025 17:58:12