R/SCR.A/12780/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 12780 of 2025 ========================================================== ALPESH MANSUKHBHAI MENDAPARA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance: MR VAIBHAV N SHETH(5337) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR ADITYA JADEJA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 19/09/2025 ORAL ORDER 1. RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of respondent No.1 – State. 2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 528 of the BNSS, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the FIR being C.R. No.11210005240887 of 2024 registered with Athwa Lines Police Station, Surat City for the o<ence punishable under Sections 336(2), 338, 336(3), 318(4), 340(2), 51, 3(5) and 319(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and other proceedings arising therefrom Aled at the instance of respondent No.2. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the complaint is Aled at the instance of respondent No. 2 alleging that the present petitioner alongwith apprehended accused Zakir @ Zakir Darbar Hussain Gulamali Nakvi who impersonated one Kurushbhai Rustamji Patel and forged his documents i.e. Aadhar Card and PAN card and on R/SCR.A/12780/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025 the basis of said forged documents, had gone personally to Axis Bank and RBL Bank and in collusion with bank employees got opened fake bank accounts and deposited Rs.25,000/- as minimum balance in RBL Bank and thus committed the alleged o<ence in conspiracy with co-accused. In this regard complaint is Aled. 4. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner and learned APP for the respondent No.1 – State. 5. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that there is no sale deed registered or the land is sold to third party or any right is created by actual usage of forged documents as alleged and the possession of disputed lands is still with respondent No.2 and there is no forgery or cheating committed by the petitioner and petitioner is not even named in the FIR nor has he prepared any false and fabricated documents nor he has signed as witness anywhere. Further, the dispute is civil in nature which has been given cloak of criminality. Hence, he has requested to allow the present application. 6. Per contra, learned APP for the State has opposed the present petition. He has submitted that investigation is at nascent stage. The role attributed to the petitioner is that by hatching conspiracy with brother the petitioner opened the bank account, transferred money and thus, prima facie involvement of the petitioner is there and he is also having similar type of past antecedents and hence, he has requested to dismiss the present R/SCR.A/12780/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025 petition. 7. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perusing the material placed on record, it is an undisputed fact that, present petitioner alongwith apprehended accused Zakir @ Zakir Darbar Hussain Gulamali Nakvi who impersonated one Kurushbhai Rustamji Patel and forged his documents i.e. Aadhar Card and PAN card and on the basis of said forged documents, had gone personally to Axis Bank and RBL Bank and in collusion with bank employees got opened fake bank accounts and deposited Rs.25,000/- as minimum balance in RBL Bank. 8. To make out an o<ence of cheating, the cheating would allude from the transactions and crux of the matter is that, with malaAde intention, the petitioner – accused has taken wrongful gain. It is not necessary to reproduce all allegations as verbatim which satisfy all ingredients of o<ence in the body of the complaint. Herein, in the instant case, during investigation, suIcient material is collected and going through the said material and statement recorded during investigation, it discloses the commission of o<ence. 9. It is needless to say at this stage that, Court should not hold mini trial, but prima facie involvement of the accused is found and complaint is not Aled with mala de intention or with a view to tarnish the image of the petitioner, then question does not arise to invoke the power under Article 226 of the Constitution R/SCR.A/12780/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025 of India. 10. 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 justiAed 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 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 Article 226 of the Constitution of India and further, it would be appropriate to refer the decision of the Apex Court in case of Ramveer Upadhyay & Anr. vs. State of U.P. & Anr. reported in 2022 OnLine SC 484. 10.1 It is worthwhile to refer to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Supriya Jain vs. State of Haryana reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 494. 11. Whatever contentions raised by the petitioner are defences of the petitioner, which cannot be looked into at this stage and this Court should not hold mini-trial while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In this regard, reference is required to be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Kourav vs. Baisahab and Others reported in (2020) 3 SCC 317, wherein, it has been R/SCR.A/12780/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025 observed and held that, evidence produced by the accused in his defence cannot be looked into by the Court, except in very exceptional circumstances, at the initial stage of criminal proceedings, if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the o<ence alleged against the accused, the Court cannot quash a criminal proceeding. 12. In wake of aforesaid discussion, present petition fails and same is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged. However, it is needless to say that, the observations made in the order are tentative in nature. (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 20/09/2025 17:19:59