Gujarat High Court
Tanmay Kejriwal vs State Of Gujarat on 9 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3750/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 3750 of 2025
==========================================================
TANMAY KEJRIWAL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR IG JOSHI(8726) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR PARTH D PATEL(9754) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS JIRGA JHAVERI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 09/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
[1.0] RULE. Learned advocates waive service of note of rule on
behalf of the respective respondents.
[2.0] Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and
since it is jointly stated at the Bar by learned advocates on both
the sides that the dispute between the parties has been resolved
amicably, this matter is taken up for final disposal forthwith.
[3.0] By way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as
“BNSS”), the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the FIR
being CR No.11191036240173 of 2024 registered with
Navrangpura Police Station, Ahmedabad City for the offences
punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 120(B) of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 and to quash all other consequential
proceedings arising therefrom.
Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 22:28:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/3750/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined
[4.0] Learned advocates for the respective parties submitted
that during the pendency of proceedings, the parties have
settled the dispute amicably and pursuant to such mutual
settlement, Mr. Devendra Patel, Authorized Signatory of the
respondent No.2 – Aditya Chokshi Family Trust has also filed an
Affidavit dated 09.07.2025 which is taken on record. In the
Affidavit, the original complainant has categorically stated that
the dispute with the petitioner has been resolved amicably and
that he has no objection, if the present proceedings are quashed
and set aside since there is no surviving grievance between them.
[5.0] It is necessary to consider whether the power conferred by
the High Court under section 482 of the CrPC is warranted. It is
true that the powers under Section 482 of the Code are very
wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution
in its exercise. The Court must be careful to see that its decision
in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The
inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate
prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of a State
should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a
case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so
when the evidence has not been collected and produced before
the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of
magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without
sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid
down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its
extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any
stage as the Hon’ble Supreme Court has decided in the case of
Page 2 of 5
Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 22:28:30 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3750/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Ravi Shankar Srivastava,
IAS & Anr., reported in AIR 2006 SC 2872.
[6.0] Having heard learned advocates on both the sides and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the
principle laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of (i) Gian
Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303,
(ii) Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2008)
4 SCC 582, (iii) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation & Anr., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 31, (iv) Manoj
Sharma Vs. State & Ors., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 190 and (v)
Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in
2014 (2) Crime 67 (SC) as also considering the fact that
settlement is arrived at between the parties and even, the
complainant has affirmed the fact of his filing the affidavit of
settlement wherein in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6, it is stated as under:
“4. That according to the said settlement arrived at between the
present petitioner and Aditya Chokshi Family Trust. The present
petitioner and the deponent in his capacity as the Authorized Signatory
of Aditya Chokshi Family Trust herein have executed the consent terms.
5. It is stated and submitted that Sanctum Wealth Advisors Pvt. Ltd.
cumulatively on behalf of the petitioner and the other accused being
Shivansh Gupta (SCRA No.3666/2025) Roopali Prabhu (SCRA
No.3673/2025) and Tanmay Kejriwal (SCRA No.3750/2025) has
transferred a sum of Rs.75,00,000/- from their bank account number
101520001356 held with DBS Bank, to the IndusInd Bank current
account number 258980002424 of M/s. Aditya Chokshi Family Trust, as
the settlement amount. The deponent herein, as the Authorized
Signatory of Aditya Chokshi Family Trust, confirms the receipt of the
said amount of Rs.75,00,000/- by M/s. Aditya Chokshi Family Trust in
the Trust’s Bank account on 07/07/2025 by way of bank transfer. It is
stated and submitted that Aditya Chokshi Family Trust has also received
an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- from Sanctum Wealth Advisors Pvt. Ltd. as
per the order dated 29/01/2025 passed by the Hon’ble High Court ofPage 3 of 5
Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 22:28:30 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/SCR.A/3750/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
Gujarat in Criminal Misc. Application No.24202/2024.”
In view of the aforesaid settlement, in the opinion of this
Court, the further continuation of criminal proceedings against
the present petitioner in relation to the impugned FIR would
cause unnecessary harassment to the petitioner. Further, the
continuance of trial pursuant to the mutual settlement arrived at
between the parties would be a futile exercise. Hence, to secure
the ends of justice, it would be appropriate to quash and set
aside the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings
initiated in pursuance thereof under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C..
[7.0] Insofar as offence under Section 420 of the IPC is
concerned, it is appropriate to refer to the decision of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rekha Jain vs. The State of
Karnataka & Anr. reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 468, wherein
the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, to make out a case against
a person for the offence under Section 420 of IPC, there must be
a dishonest inducement to deceive a person to deliver any
property to any other person. Further, in the case of Sarabjit
Kaur vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in (2023)5 SCC 360 has
held in paragraph No.13 as follows:
“13. A breach of contract does not give rise to criminal
prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention
is shown right at the beginning of the transaction. Merely on the
allegation of failure to keep up promise will not be enough to
initiate criminal proceedings. From the facts available on record,
it is evident that the respondent No.2 had improved his case ever
since the first complaint was filed in which there were no
allegations against the appellant rather it was only against the
property dealers which was in subsequent complaints that the
name of the appellant was mentioned. On the first complaint, thePage 4 of 5
Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 22:28:30 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/SCR.A/3750/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
only request was for return of the amount paid by the respondent
No.2. When the offence was made out on the basis of the first
complaint, the second complaint was filed with improved version
making allegations against the appellant as well which was not
there in the earlier complaint. The entire idea seems to be to
convert a civil dispute into criminal and put pressure on the
appellant for return of the amount allegedly paid. The criminal
Courts are not meant to be used for settling scores or pressurise
parties to settle civil disputes. Wherever ingredients of criminal
offences are made out, criminal courts have to take cognizance.
The complaint in question on the basis of which F.I.R. was
registered was filed nearly three years after the last date fixed
for registration of the sale deed. Allowing the proceedings to
continue would be an abuse of process of the Court.”
It is also apposite to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the cases of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. &
Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in 2024 INSC
626 and Rikhab Birani & Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
reported in 2025 INSC 512.
[8.0] In the result, petition is allowed. The impugned FIR being
CR No.11191036240173 of 2024 registered with Navrangpura
Police Station, Ahmedabad City as well as all consequential
proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof are hereby quashed
and set aside qua the petitioner herein. Rule is made absolute to
the aforesaid extent only. Direct service is permitted.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.)
Ajay
Page 5 of 5
Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 22:28:30 IST 2025
[ad_1]
Source link