IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO.21903 of 2023 ========================================================== CHIRAG REVABHAI BHARWAD & ORS. Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance : MR VILAS S PATIL for the Applicants No.1,2,3,4 MS DIVYANGNA JHALA, APP for the Respondent No.1. ========================================= CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI Date : 21/08/2025 ORAL ORDER 1. This petition is filed since 28.11.2023 and same was registered on 16.12.2023. The order sheet indicates that all throughout from 16.12.2023, the matter has only been adjourned on numerous occasions and was never conducted by learned advocate for the applicant. When the matter was listed yesterday i.e. 20.8.2025, following order was passed by this Court :- “The matter was called out twice. However, learned advocate Mr. Vilas Patil appearing for the applicant is absent on both the occasions. Hence, list on 21.8.2025. If tomorrow, learned advocate Mr. Patil chooses to remain absent, the matter shall be considered on its own merits with the assistance of learned APP.” 2. Today also, when the matter was called out at 14.30, learned advocate Mr. Patil is absent. Hence, considering the long p. 2 pendency of the matter without there being any hearing, the matter was taken up for hearing with the assistance of learned APP. 3. On perusal of the papers, it transpires that FIR was registered on 28.8.2016 against the present applicant and three other persons wherein it is alleged by one Sanjay J. Rajput that he has landed a sum of Rs.50,000/- to one Mr. Amrutlal Maurya before about six months and that he was not repaying the aforesaid amount and thereafter, verbal altercation took place and thereafter that Amrutlal told the complainant that he is coming to see him. Thereafter at around 11.30 in the morning, the said Amrutlal along with the present applicants and other persons came to the place of complainant, threatened him and went away. Thereafter, the present applicants along with other persons came to the place of complainant along with wooden log and started breaking the glasses of the office of the complainant and caused damage of Rs.50,000/-. 4. Though charge-sheet was filed in the year 2016 itself, now as can be seen from the Rojkam of Sessions Case No.111 of 2018 annexed along with the petition is at the stage of evidence of prosecution, as charge has already been framed. 5. Considering the fact that not only because of filing of charge-sheet against the present applicants, prima facie, it can be believed that prima facie offence is made out now since charge has already been framed and in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Parikh v. CBI, 2008 (10) SCC 109 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that unless rarest of the rare case is made out once the charge is framed, the p. 3 Court may not exercise powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of a criminal trial. Therefore, when learned advocate for the applicants has chosen to remain absent and from perusal of the documents on record, nothing could be found or inferred that there is nothing exceptional which may fall in the rarest of the rare case and, therefore, once the charge is framed, I do not see any reason to entertain this petition. Accordingly, the petition is required to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. It is clarified that present dismissal shall not come in the way of the present applicants in getting their case considered on merits during the course of trial and the learned Trial Court may not be influenced by the present dismissal and consider the merits of the matter irrespective of the dismissal of this petition. (NIRZAR S. DESAI,J) SAVARIYA