R/SCR.A/11577/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/08/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 11577 of 2025 ========================================================== JALDIP JITENDRAKUMAR DAVE Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance: MR SALMAN S KHAN(9496) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 22/08/2025 ORAL ORDER 1. RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of respondent No.1 – State of Gujarat. 2. By way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”), the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the FIR being C.R. No.11191042250198 of 2025 registered with Satellite Police Station, Ahmedabad City for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 316(4), 318(4), 336(2), 338, 339 and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has nothing to do with the offence and he is falsely implicated in the offence. It is submitted that the complainant is engaged in the business of consultancy and supply and purchase of several goods and services and engages in cash transaction or uses the personal bank account of its employees to gain some benefits in income tax returns pursuant to which petitioner was ready to accept certain of money R/SCR.A/11577/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/08/2025 into his bank account on instructions of the complainant and his parents, who are the employer of present petitioner however, thereafter the petitioner has transferred the amount back into company’s account, which shows bonafides and intention of the petitioner. As regards allegation of complainant that petitioner has siphoned off money from the bank account of companies of complainant by forging signatures, it is submitted that none of the cheques were returned with an endorsement of ‘signature mis-match’. Hence, he has requested to allow the present petition. 4. Learned APP has vehemently opposed the petition and argued that the petitioner has committed serious offence and investigation is at nascent stage and yet charge-sheet is not filed and therefore, this petition be dismissed. 5. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the documents available on record, it appears from the record that the petitioner has created forged cheque book of without the knowledge of complainant and/or his parents and by forging signatures of parents of complainant, the petitioner has siphoned away total amount of Rs.1,64,00,481/- which he transferred in different bank accounts of his relatives and also through cash withdrawal and in this complaint is filed. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has received money as per the instructions of Directors and the owner of the company and for tax planning purpose, same was withdrawn and subsequently re-deposited in the account of the company. Hence, there is no any offence or mal-practice adopted by the present petitioner but perusing the complaint it appears that when alleged incident took place, at that time, amount misappropriated was R/SCR.A/11577/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/08/2025 Rs.1,94,75,481/- by three accused and at that time the accused persons have accepted the misappropriation of said amount and out of the said amount, they had returned Rs.30,75,000/- and said fact is clearly mentioned in the FIR. Hence, the said argument or defence is not acceptable at this stage as the complaint is filed for misappropriation of remaining amount of Rs.1,64,00,481/- and accused persons have during the period of years 2018 to 2025, from the company of parents of complainant as well as Anandjiwala Technical Consultancy LLP as the petitioner was employee, he has committed an offence by receiving the cheque books from the bank and put forged signature and he has received the money. Hence, prima facie offence under Sections 316(2), 316(4) and 318(4) of the BNS is made out as being an employee of the company, by winning over the trust and having control over the account of the company, alleged incident took place and thereafter he has forged the documents in connivance and collusion of co-accused. Hence, prima facie offence is made out. 5.1 Further, learned advocate for the petitioner has argued that there is specific provision under the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 for audit and nothing has come out during the audit as the company failed to maintain the account properly. Herein, no any question of audit arise. The allegation against the petitioner is that by winning over the trust he has committed the offence of cheating by receiving the cheque books from the bank and has forged the signature and siphoned the amount as an employee. Hence, the said argument is not acceptable. All these arguments are in nature of defence and while deciding the quashing petition, Court has to consider only the allegations levelled in the complaint and as to R/SCR.A/11577/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/08/2025 whether prima facie offence is made out or not. Herein, prima facie offence is made out. Whatever defence put forth by the petitioner cannot be looked into at this stage as the investigation is at nascent stage and present case does not fall in the category of law laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhajan Lal vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 1992 SC 604. Further, the complaint indicates that the offense was registered on 03.07.2025, and an ongoing investigation is in progress and at this initial stage, the petitioner has filed this petition for quashing and setting aside the complaint, which evidently appears filed with a view to stall further proceedings and investigation. 6. 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. 7. Further 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 petition for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 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 enquiry 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;” 8. It is also appropriate to refer to the decision of the case of R/SCR.A/11577/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/08/2025 Emperor vs. Khwaja Nazir Ahmed reported in AIR 1945 PC 18 wherein it has been observed that in India, there is a statutory right on the part of the police to investigate the circumstances of an alleged cognizable crime without requiring any authority from the judicial authorities. It is further observed that it would be an unfortunate result if it should be held possible to interfere with those statutory rights by an exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. It is further observed that the functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping, and the combination of individual liberty with a due observance of law and order is only to be obtained by leaving each to exercise its own function. 9. Considering the aforesaid facts, and settled position of law, the Court is unable to come to any conclusion that the offence is not made out. Therefore, the petition stands dismissed at admission stage. Observations made herein above are tentative in nature and will not cause any prejudice to either party at the trial. Rule is discharged. (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 22/08/2025 18:08:16