Gujarat High Court
Ranjitsinh Jaswantsinh Saran vs State Of Gujarat on 31 July, 2025
Author: Nirzar S. Desai
Bench: Nirzar S. Desai
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/13578/2024 ORDER DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 13578 of 2024
==========================================================
RANJITSINH JASWANTSINH SARAN
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MJ MEHTA(5797) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR SAURABH J MEHTA(2170) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR YUVRAJ BRAHMBHATT APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 31/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Saurabh Mehta, appearing with Mr. Yash Shah, for the petitioner. Learned APP appeared for the respondent-State. At the outset, Learned APP pointed out that following the registration of the FIR, a charge sheet has been filed, and the trial has commenced, with the charge already framed in Criminal Case No. 22779 of 2023. The report dated 31.07.2025 submitted by the Police Inspector, B Division Police Station, Rajkot City, is taken on record.
2. By way of this petition, the petitioner seeks to quash and set aside the impugned FIR being C.R. No. 11208051221364/2022 registered at B Division Police Station, Rajkot City, for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC. The petitioner also seeks to quash and set aside the charge sheet dated 24.11.2023 filed in Criminal Case No. 22779 of 2023 pending before the Court of Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by BHAVINKUMAR DEVENDRABHAI MEHTA(HCW0108) on Sat Aug 02 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 21:45:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/13578/2024 ORDER DATED: 31/07/2025 undefined the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot.
3. As per the FIR filed by one Rasila Ben, daughter of Panchabai Bhanabai Chovatiya, it is alleged that a land located at Village Saraya, Taluka Tankara, District Morbi, bearing Revenue Survey No. 21 Paiki 2 Paiki 2, admeasuring 2-83-28 Hectare-RA-Sq.Mts and recorded in Khata No. 356 in the name of Jaswantsinh Ramsinh Saran, was intended to be purchased by her husband. An agreement to sell was executed on ₹100 stamp paper, signed by both parties. A total consideration of ₹62 lakhs was allegedly paid by way of cash, cheque, a residential property, and XUV 500 vehicle. The amount was received by the petitioner and his deceased father at Rajkot in the presence of witnesses. In 2016, possession and a receipt of the land were handed over by Jaswantsinh Saran, who later passed away. An agreement to sell was again executed in 2017. Despite repeated requests, the sale deed was not executed. About a year and a half prior to the FIR, both Jaswantsinh and his son Ranjitsinh (the petitioner) allegedly came to the complainant's residence and demanded ₹8 lakhs on the pretext that the land had been converted into old tenure. However, this conversion order was later found to be bogus and despite repeated requests upon death of Jaswant Sinh, even the son of the Jaswant Sinh, i.e. Ranjit Singh i.e. present petitioner was not ready to execute a sale deed and therefore, the FIR was registered.
4. Learned Advocate Mr. Sourabh Mehta submitted that the offence in question has been wrongly converted into a criminal case, whereas the dispute between the parties is civil in Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by BHAVINKUMAR DEVENDRABHAI MEHTA(HCW0108) on Sat Aug 02 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 21:45:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/13578/2024 ORDER DATED: 31/07/2025 undefined nature. A civil suit regarding the same has already been filed by the complainant and is pending.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Mehta also submitted that the allegations in the FIR are primarily against Jaswant Sinh Saran, the father of the present petitioner, who has since passed away. He further submitted that there is an unexplained delay of more than eight years in the registration of the offence, as the FIR was lodged in 2022, whereas, according to Column No. 3 of the FIR, the alleged offence began on 01.01.2014.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Mehta for the petitioner, therefore submitted that, considering the civil nature of the dispute for which a suit has already been filed by the complainant and the unexplained delay in filing the FIR, this may be treated as exceptional circumstances. Hence, despite the fact that charges have been framed and the trial is at the stage of recording evidence, this Court may exercise its powers and quash the ongoing criminal proceedings.
7. Apart from this, no other submissions were made, nor any decisions were cited by learned advocate Mr. Mehta for the petitioner.
8. Learned APP vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Bharat Parekh v. CBI, reported in (2008) 10 SCC 109 , has categorically held that unless exceptional circumstances are made out, the Court should not interfere in an ongoing Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by BHAVINKUMAR DEVENDRABHAI MEHTA(HCW0108) on Sat Aug 02 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 21:45:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/13578/2024 ORDER DATED: 31/07/2025 undefined criminal trial once the charge has been framed. Therefore, as the charge has already been framed in the present case, the learned APP prayed for dismissal of the petition.
9. Learned APP also relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 14.07.2025 in the case of Kathyayini v. Sidharth P.S. Reddy and Others , and by referring to paragraph 23 of the said decision, submitted that even if a civil dispute exists, when a prima facie offence is made out, a full-fledged criminal trial is necessary..
10. By making above submissions, Learned APP prayed for dismissal of the present petition.
11. I have heard Learned Advocate for the parties and perused the documents.
12. Upon reading the FIR, the facts that emerge are that although an agreement to sell was executed between the parties in respect of the land in question and the consideration was received by the petitioner and his late father, the sale deed was never executed. However, what is significant is that the petitioner, along with his father, allegedly produced a fraudulent order, handed it over to the complainant, and collected a further sum of ₹8 lakhs. This order, which purportedly converted the land into old tenure land, was later found to be bogus. Consequently, the offence was registered, an investigation was carried out, a charge sheet was filed, and the charge has now been framed. The case is presently at the stage of evidence. In light of the charge being framed, the Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by BHAVINKUMAR DEVENDRABHAI MEHTA(HCW0108) on Sat Aug 02 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 21:45:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/13578/2024 ORDER DATED: 31/07/2025 undefined observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharat Parekh v. CBI, reported in (2008) 10 SCC, become relevant-- particularly those in paragraphs 18 and 19, which state as follows;
18. "With regard to the second proposition regarding the High Court's powers to look into materials produced on behalf of or at the instance of the accused for the purpose of invoking its powers under Section 482 of the Code for quashing the charges framed, it has to be kept in mind that after the stage of framing charge evidence has to be led on behalf of the prosecution to prove the charge if an accused pleads not guilty to the charge and/or charges and claims to be tried. It is only in the exceptional circumstances enumerated in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Suppl.(1) SCC 335, that a criminal proceeding may be quashed to secure the ends of justice, but such a stage will come only after evidence is led, particularly when the prosecution had produced sufficient material for charges to be framed".
19. " As observed in Debendra Nath Padhi's case (supra) at the stage of framing charge roving and fishing inquiry is impermissible and a mini trial cannot be conducted at such stage. At the stage of framing of charge the submissions on behalf of the accused has to be confined to the material produced by the investigating agency. The accused will get an opportunity to prove the documents subsequently produced by the prosecution on the order of the Court, but the same cannot be relied upon to re-open the proceedings once charge has been framed or for invocation of the High Court's powers Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by BHAVINKUMAR DEVENDRABHAI MEHTA(HCW0108) on Sat Aug 02 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 21:45:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/13578/2024 ORDER DATED: 31/07/2025 undefined under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure."
13. In view of the above observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, once the charge is framed, criminal proceedings can be quashed only in exceptional circumstances. As enumerated in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp.
(1) SCC 335, that a criminal proceedings may be quashed to secure the ends of justice but such a stage will come only after evidence is led, particularly, when the prosecution has produced sufficient material for charges to be framed. In the present case as well, it is an undisputed fact that the charge has been framed, but no exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated by the learned advocate for the petitioner.
Furthermore, in a recent decision in Kathyayini v. Sidharth P.S. Reddy (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in paragraph 23, has held as follows:
23. " The above precedents set by this Court make it crystal clear that pendency of civil proceedings on the same subject matter, involving the same parties is no justification to quash the criminal proceedings if a prima facie case exists against the accused persons. In present case certainly such prima facie case exists against the respondents. Considering the long chain of events from creation of family tree excluding the daughters of K.G.Yellappa Reddy, partition deed among only the sons and grandsons of K.G.Yellappa Reddy, distribution of compensation award among the respondents is sufficient to conclude that there was active effort by respondents to reap off the benefits from the land in question. Further, the alleged threat to Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by BHAVINKUMAR DEVENDRABHAI MEHTA(HCW0108) on Sat Aug 02 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 21:45:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/13578/2024 ORDER DATED: 31/07/2025 undefined appellant and her sisters on revelation of the above chain of events further affirms the motive of respondents. All the above factors suggest that a criminal trial is necessary to ensure justice to the appellant."
14. In view of the above observations, when a prima facie case exists in criminal proceedings, the mere pendency of civil proceedings would not justify quashing the criminal case. In the present case, as charges have already been framed and a prima facie case has been made out against the petitioner, and in the absence of any exceptional circumstances being demonstrated, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the ongoing criminal proceedings, which are currently at the stage of evidence. Resultantly, the present petition fails and same is required to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J) BHAVIN MEHTA Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by BHAVINKUMAR DEVENDRABHAI MEHTA(HCW0108) on Sat Aug 02 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 21:45:54 IST 2025