R/CR.MA/17608/2026(GJHC240550442026) JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 17608 of 2026 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY SD/- ========================================================== Approved for Reporting Yes No ✔ ========================================================== BHARATBHAI RAVJIBHAI JAGANI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance: ANAND S TAILOR(9021) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS. KRINA CALLA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY Date : 24/09/2026 JUDGMENT 1. By filing application under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs: - “A. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to admit and allow the present petition; B. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order and/or direction quashing and setting aside impugned FIR no. 11210060260871 of 2026 dated 17.04.2026 (at Annexure - A) registered with Varacha Police Station, Surat for offences punishable u/s 75(1) of BNS as well as u/s 7, 8, 11(1), 12 and 18 of the PoCSO Act and this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order R/CR.MA/17608/2026(GJHC240550442026) JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2026 and/or direction quashing and setting aside impugned charge-sheet dated 15.06.2026 (at Annexure-B) and consequential proceedings thereon in the interest of justice; C. Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to STAY the POCSO Case no. 163/2026 pending before the 14th Addl. District Judge and Special Court, POCSO, Surat and consequential proceedings thereon in the interest of justice; D. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass such other and/or further orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant appearing for the applicant. He submitted that earlier, the applicant had filed Special Criminal Application No.8343 of 2026 which was withdrawn by him on 20/07/2026, since, during the pendency of the said application, the charge-sheet had been filed. In the said proceedings, the applicant had placed an affidavit on record stating that he had been advised by the Advocate to file a Criminal Misc. Application under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, since the charge-sheet had already been filed and therefore, he had withdrawn the earlier Special Criminal Application filed by him. He further submitted that the earlier proceedings initiated by the applicant were in the form of a Special Criminal Application, whereas the present application is a Criminal Miscellaneous Application, and therefore, the maintainability of the present application is not barred merely because the applicant had withdrawn the earlier the Special Criminal Application filed by him. He submitted that, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. reported in (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1948, a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of an FIR is not maintainable after the cognizance of the offence has been taken by the learned Trial Court. In the present case, the Investigating Agency filed the charge-sheet against the applicant on 14.06.2026 and, on 15.06.2026 itself, the learned Trial Court R/CR.MA/17608/2026(GJHC240550442026) JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2026 ordered issuance of summons against the present applicant. Thus, cognizance of the offence had already been taken by the learned Trial Court on 15.06.2026, and therefore, the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was not maintainable, and hence, the applicant had withdrawn the earlier application filed by him. He further submitted that allowing the proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR to continue would amount to gross abuse of the process of law. He submitted that the incident alleged in the FIR had taken place on 12.03.2026, whereas the FIR in that regard came to be lodged on 17.04.2026. The present applicant had given an application to the Varachha Police Station, Surat city, complaining about the assault committed by the husband of the first informant and other persons upon him as well as his other family members and on the basis of the said application, a Chapter Case was registered against them. Similarly, the husband of the first informant had also given an application to the Varachha Police Station regarding the incident which had taken place on 12.03.2026 and pursuant to the said application, the preventive measures were taken by the concerned authority against the present applicant. He submitted that in the application submitted by the husband of the first informant to the concerned Police authority, there was no mention of the daughter of the first informant having being subjected to any sexual harassment at the hands of the present applicant. Therefore, the story as regards the daughter of the first informant having being subjected to sexual harassment was nothing but an afterthought. He further submitted that, in fact, the family members of the applicant had sustained severe injuries in the incident which had taken place on 12.03.2026, and therefore, the applicant herein was pursuing his remedies for getting an FIR registered against the persons responsible. Consequently, the FIR came to be registered on 15.03.2026. Thereafter, the husband of the first informant and other persons involved in assaulting the family members of the present applicant were arrested during the course of investigation of the FIR lodged by the present applicant, and the R/CR.MA/17608/2026(GJHC240550442026) JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2026 applicant was making efforts to ensure that they were not released on bail. Therefore, with an ulterior motive, the impugned FIR has been lodged against the present applicant. He further submitted that the husband of the first informant and other family members are headstrong persons and were bent upon ensuring that the applicant was booked in a criminal case by hook or by crook. He further submitted that the applicant had been so harassed by the other side that he had been compelled to leave his own house in the society and reside elsewhere in rented premises. He submitted that the CCTV footage collected during the course of investigation did not support the prosecution case, as it did not reflect anything concerning the alleged incident. He submitted that as per the case of prosecution, the alleged incident had taken place on the first floor of the building where several apartments are situated and where people reside. The prosecutrix did not raise any cry for help after the incident, which creates a doubt about the truthfulness of the story. He also submitted that the delay caused in lodging the FIR also creates a dent in the prosecution case. If the daughter of the first informant had been subjected to sexual harassment by the present applicant as alleged, the complainant and her family members ought to have immediately taken steps and approached the appropriate authority. If the story of the prosecution was true, it would not have taken them more than one month to register the present FIR. He, therefore, submitted to allow the present application and quash and set aside the impugned FIR and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom. Learned Advocate appearing for the applicant has sought to rely upon the following judgments in support of his submissions: - (i) Judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. reported in (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1948; (ii) Judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Ahmad Ali Quraishi And Anr. Versus The State of Uttar Pradesh passed in Criminal Appeal No.138 of 2020. Page 4 of 8 R/CR.MA/17608/2026(GJHC240550442026) JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2026 3. Learned APP has opposed the present application by contending that the present application is a successive application filed by the applicant after withdrawal of the Special Criminal Application filed by him earlier, with the very same prayer, and therefore, in view of the settled proposition of law, the present successive application is not maintainable. She further submitted that during the course of investigation, the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 183 of the BNSS, 2023, was recorded wherein she had categorically stated the manner in which the incident had taken place and there is no reason for doubting the said statement at this stage. She further submitted that the Investigating agency had recorded the statements of several other witnesses during the course of investigation. She further submitted that delay caused in lodging the FIR had been satisfactorily explained by the first informant in the FIR itself, and therefore, the same would not have any bearing on the case of the prosecution at least at this stage. She, therefore, submitted to dismiss the present application. 4. Learned Advocate Mr. S.M. Kikani appearing for the respondent – original complainant has also opposed the present application. He submitted that the present application filed after withdrawal of the earlier application, is not maintainable in view of the settled position of law. He also submitted that the incident alleged had taken place on 12.03.2026 and immediately thereafter, since there was a death in the family, the family of the prosecutrix was required to travel to their native place. They returned to Surat on 16.03.2026 and immediately thereafter on 17.03.2026, the grandfather of the prosecutrix had submitted an application to the concerned Police Station complaining about the incident alleged in the FIR. Thereafter, since the grandfather and the father of the prosecutrix were taken into custody in connection with the FIR lodged by the present applicant, the matter was pursued by the present first informant and ultimately, on 17.04.2026, the FIR impugned came to be lodged. Therefore, the R/CR.MA/17608/2026(GJHC240550442026) JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2026 delay caused in lodging the FIR has been satisfactorily explained. He further submitted after the alleged incident, the prosecutrix was so terrified that she had not returned to her house and was residing in the hostel of her school. He further submitted that the CCTV footage collected during the course of investigation shows that after the prosecutrix is seen going upstairs, the applicant also goes upstairs behind her and thereafter returns after some time, which supports the theory of the prosecution case. He, therefore, submitted to dismiss the present application. Learned Advocate appearing for the original complainant has sought to rely upon the judgment of this Court in case of Dashrathbhai B. Patel Versus State of Gujarat in support of his submissions. 5. Heard learned Advocates for the parties. It is the case of the prosecution, as stated in the FIR, that on 12.03.2026, when the prosecutrix was climbing the stairs of the building while returning home from school, she was intercepted by the present applicant on the first floor of the building. The applicant caught hold of her hand and stated that he liked her very much and asked her to come to his house. He tried to take her to his house. She somehow escaped from the custody of the applicant and went to her house and informed her mother. The statement of the prosecutrix under Section 183 of the BNSS, 2023 has been recorded, wherein she has stated the aforesaid facts. It is also pertinent to note from the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, 2023, that her sister and another friend were also present with her when they were playing Holi on the terrace of the building. When the applicant came there, he started making indecent gestures towards her. The age of the prosecutrix was 14 years at the time of the incident. At this stage, there is no reason for this Court to doubt the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, 2023. It is also pertinent to note that the Investigating Agency has recorded the statements of several other witnesses during the R/CR.MA/17608/2026(GJHC240550442026) JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2026 course of investigation, who have supported the case of the prosecution in their respective statements. One such witness, viz., Mamtaben Jivani, has stated in her statement that on 12.03.2026, at around 5:30 p.m., she was present at the house of the prosecutrix when the prosecutrix entered her house crying. Upon being asked the reason for crying, she stated that she had been intercepted by the present applicant, who had caught hold of her hand and asked her to come to his house. It is sought to be contended on behalf of the applicant that the witnesses whose statements have been recorded during the course of investigation are interested witnesses. However, merely because these witnesses are interested witnesses, their statements cannot be discarded at this stage. 5.1 The other aspect which is vehemently argued on behalf of the applicant is the delay in lodging the FIR. The incident alleged in the FIR took place on 12.03.2026, whereas the FIR came to be lodged on 17.04.2026. The delay in lodging the FIR is sought to be explained by the first informant in the FIR itself by stating that, immediately after the incident, since there was a death in the family, the entire family was required to travel to their native place in Bhavnagar District, from where they returned on 16.03.2026. Therefore, immediately on 17.03.2026, the grandfather of the prosecutrix submitted a complaint to the concerned Police Authority, which culminated in the registration of the impugned FIR. Thus, an explanation has been put forth with regard to the delay in lodging the FIR. Whether the said delay is fatal to the case of the prosecution or not is a matter which is required to be considered at the stage of appreciation of evidence during trial. Merely because there is a delay in lodging the FIR, the case of the prosecution cannot be thrown overboard when the material available on record, as stated hereinabove, makes out a prima-facie case. 5.2 It is also contended that the impugned FIR is nothing but an attempt on R/CR.MA/17608/2026(GJHC240550442026) JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2026 the part of the first informant and her family to falsely implicate the present applicant, as the applicant himself had lodged the FIR against them. It is also submitted that in the complaint given by the father of the prosecutrix on the basis of which the Chapter Case was registered against the present applicant, there is no reference to any sexual harassment being caused by the present application to the prosecutrix. At the cost of repetition, it is to be noted that when the material available on record makes out a prima-facie case, it would not be proper for this Court to discard the case of the prosecution by holding it to be an afterthought or a counterblast. It would be more appropriate for the prosecution to lead evidence and take its case to its logical conclusion. It would be too early for this Court to hold the present FIR to be a counterblast to the FIR lodged by the present applicant. Learned Advocate appearing for the applicant has sought to rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Ahmad Ali Quraishi (Supra) in support of his submissions. However, in the facts of the case before the Hon’ble Apex Court, the complainant had preferred an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Court, and thereafter, upon intervention of the National Human Rights Commission, the complaint in that case was registered. It was, in the background of these facts, that the Hon’ble Apex Court had made the relevant observations which could not be applicable in the present case. Under the circumstances, the present application, being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed. SD/- (M. R. MENGDEY,J) RAVI OZA Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: RAVI OZA(HCW0111), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE ONE, at High Court of Gujarat on 25/09/2026 18:00:48