Gujarat High Court
Killol Vinodbhai Shelat vs State Of Gujarat on 21 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18160/2015 ORDER DATED: 21/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 18160 of 2015
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 18164 of 2015
==========================================================
KILLOL VINODBHAI SHELAT
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MANISH J PATEL(2131) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
KSHITIJ M AMIN(7572) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR HARNISH DARJI for MR PRADIP D BHATE(1523) for the Respondent(s)
No. 2
MR SOHAM JOSHI, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 21/08/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
2. Issue involved in both the petitions are one and the same and therefore, with the consent of learned advocates for the respective parties, they are taken up together and being disposed of analogously by this common order.
3. In Criminal Misc. Application No.18160 of 2015 filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside proceedings of Criminal Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Fri Aug 22 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 23 00:27:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/18160/2015 ORDER DATED: 21/08/2025 undefined Case No.74 of 2004 pending before the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under Sections 13 r/w section 17 r/w section 629A of the Companies Act, 1956 (in short "the Act") of the as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the petitioner herein.
3.1 In Criminal Misc. Application No.18164 of 2015, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside proceedings of Criminal Case No.496 of 2003 pending before the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under Sections 291/292 r/w section 629A of the Act of the as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the petitioner herein.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Manish Patel appearing for the petitioner, mainly harp upon the issue that the alleged offence took place in the year 1996 and the complaint of which is filed on 22nd June 2024. He would further submit that the learned trial court has also taken cognizance on the very same date. He would further submit that the private complaint was filed for the breach of the offence punishable under section 13 read with section 17 of the Act in one matter, and in another matter, it was alleged that the petitioner has breached the offence of sections 291 and 292 of the Act. However, the punishment for breach of both the offences are provided in section 629A of the Act. He would further submit that the maximum punishment provided in section 629A of the Act is fine, which may extend to Rs.5000/- and if the breach is Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Fri Aug 22 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 23 00:27:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/18160/2015 ORDER DATED: 21/08/2025 undefined continued, every day after the first date, the fine of Rs.500/- to be imposed. He would further submit that thus, the maximum punishment, which is imposed in Section 629A of the Act is fine. Referring to sections 468, 469 and 472 of the Code, he would submit that in view of sub-section (2)(a) of section 468 of the Code, the period of limitation shall be six months if the offence is punishable with fine only. He would further submit that as per section 469(1)(a) of the Code, the date of the offence would be reckoning time period. However, the relaxation provided in section 469(b) and (c) would not apply in the present case. He would further submit that the present offence is not a continuous offence in view of specific bar operates to take cognizance of the offence after lapse of period of limitation.
4.1 To buttress his submission, learned advocate Mr. Manish Patel referred to the judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Ravi Kapoor Vs. State of Gujarat rendered in Special Criminal Application No.809 of 2014 and in case of Rasiklal Shantilal Mardia Vs. State of Gujarat rendered in Special Criminal Application No.5435 of 2014.
4.2 Upon such submissions, learned advocate Mr. Manish Patel requests to allow these petitions.
5. Per contra, learned ad advocate, Mr. Harnish Darji appearing for learned advocate, Mr. Pradip Bhate for the private respondent in the facts and circumstances of the case would submit to past necessary orders.
Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Fri Aug 22 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 23 00:27:18 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/18160/2015 ORDER DATED: 21/08/2025 undefined
6. The argument is also adopted by learned APP to dismiss the petitions.
7. It is noticeable that in one matter, it is alleged that the petitioner has breached the offence under section 13 read with section 17 of the Act having punishment stated in section 629A of the Act. Perusal of sections 13 and 17 of the Act does not indicate that those offences are continuous offence. Section 629A of the Act provides maximum punishment of fine. In another matter, it is allegation of breach of offence under sections 291 and 292 of the Act having punishment stated in section 629A of the Act. Perusal of sections 291 and 292 of the Act indicates that they are also not continuous offence. Section 468(2)(a) provides limitation of six months provided offence is punishable with fine only. In the present case, the learned trial court has taken cognizance after expiry of the limitation. In absence of the offence being continuous one, the learned trial court was not expected to take cognizance as judicial bar applies under section 468(2)(a) of the Code. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in cases of Ravi Kapoor (supra) and Rasiklal Mardia (supra) has vividly and exhaustively discussed this issue. The discussion and reasoning ascribed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in that case, taking assistance from the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Udai Shankar Vs. State of UP and another, (2013) 2 SCC 435 also governed the issue raised in this petition, therefore, applying those findings and observations to the present case, I find that the petitioner has made out the case, and therefore, both the petitions deserve consideration.
Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Fri Aug 22 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 23 00:27:18 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/18160/2015 ORDER DATED: 21/08/2025 undefined
8. In the case of State of Haryana Vs. B.Bhajanlal & ors., AIR 1992 SC 604, the Hon'ble Apex Court summed up the proposition of law, which reads as under:-
"(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations ins the F.I.R. and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under S.156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of S.155(2) of the code.
(3) Where, the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same donot disclose the commission of any offence and make out the case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under S.155(2) of the Code.
(5) Whether, the allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint are sO absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where, there is an express legal bare engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) toi the institution and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Fri Aug 22 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 23 00:27:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/18160/2015 ORDER DATED: 21/08/2025 undefined efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
8.1 The findings of the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 1,3 and 7 are attracted in the present case. In view of above, present petition deserves consideration.
9. In the result, present petitions are allowed and proceedings of Criminal Case Nos.74 of 2004 and 496 of 2003 pending before the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Ahmedabad as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the petitioner herein are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) SHEKHAR P. BARVE Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Fri Aug 22 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 23 00:27:18 IST 2025