R/SCR.A/12589/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 12589 of 2025 ============================================ TAUSHIFAHEMAD TAIMURBHAI GOHIL Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ============================================ Appearance: VASIMRAJA A KURESHI(8609) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR KRUTIK PARIKH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ============================================ CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 15/09/2025 ORAL ORDER 1) By way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner has sought for following main reliefs:- “B. YOUR LORDSHIPS BE PLEASED To Allot This Petition By Way Of Quashing And Setting Aside The complaint filed before Jhagadiya Police Station, Bharuch District on 22/07/2025 being FIR No. 11199028250540 of 2025 for the offences punishable under Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, as no prima facie offence under Section 105 of BNS is disclosed against the present applicant.; C. YOUR LORDSHIPS BE PLEASED to Hold that at the highest, the ingredients of Section 106(1) of BNS (equivalent to Section 304A IPC – causing death by negligence) may be attracted, but the materials on record, including video and photographic evidence, clearly indicate that the Applicant / Bus Driver was driving on the correct side of the road and under due control, whereas the R/SCR.A/12589/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2025 collision was caused solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the Eco Car driver.” 2) Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner and learned APP for respondent – State of Gujarat. 3) It is the main contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner was not driving Gujarat S.T. Bus on wrong side as there was official diversion given by the authority and same is conveyed to the concerned Investigating Officer and therefore offence under Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (which shall hereinafter be referred to as “BNS” for short) but offence under Section 106(1) of the BNS or other offence is made out. 4) It is needless to say that learned APP has opposed the petition on the ground that it is undisputed fact that the vehicle was driven by the petitioner on wrong side which clearly reveals from communication. As to whether diversion was there or any photography or videography is concerned the same is disputed question and question of evidence. As complaint is filed on 22.07.2025, the disputed question cannot be gone while deciding the petition if investigation is over and if something is there in favour of the petitioner then the concerned Investigating Officer has to take call under which section offence is made out. Even at the time of framing charge the Court has to consider material evidence is enough to substantiate the charge alleged or levelled against the petitioner and if the charge is groundless and no offence is made out then the Court may take appropriate decision at the time of framing of charge. At this stage no case is made out to pass any direction or to jump to the conclusion that offence is not made out under Section 105 of the BNS as investigation is at nascent stage. Page 2 of 3 R/SCR.A/12589/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2025 5) It is also appropriate to refer to the decision of the case of 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. 6) Considering the aforesaid facts, no case is made out. Accordingly, present petition is dismissed in limine. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ANKIT Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE I, at High Court of Gujarat on 15/09/2025 18:38:27