Gujarat High Court
Heenaben – D/O Ghanshyambhai Thakkar vs State Of Gujarat on 7 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/16073/2024 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 16073 of 2024
==========================================================
HEENABEN - D/O GHANSHYAMBHAI THAKKAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KK TRIVEDI(934) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
DARSHAN M VARANDANI(7357) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR MANAN MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 07/08/2025
ORAL ORDER
1) By way of this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”), the applicants
have prayed to quash and set aside the FIR being
C.R.No.11196041240421 of 2024 registered with Akota Police
Station, Vadodara, for the offence under Sections 406 and 120(b) of
Indian Penal Code, 1860 and other proceedings arising therefrom qua
them.
2) The accused No.1 – Atonu Datta and present petitioner – Heen
Thakkar, in collusion with each other, hatched a conspiracy with the
intent to commit financial embezzlement and cheating. During his
tenure at the complainant company, Atonu Datta used the name of
the complainant company’s unit – Alceon, to establish two companies
under the names “Alceon Meditech” and “Design Logic.” The accused
misled the customers of the complainant company and diverted
payments that were due to the complainant from client companies
Page 1 of 14
Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 22:04:58 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/16073/2024 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
into the bank accounts of his own companies and other personal
accounts, totaling an amount of ₹1,33,69,750.82/-. Furthermore, by
misusing the official email ID and laptop provided by the complainant
company to the petitioner, the accused carried out a technically
sophisticated fraud against the complainant Company. In this regard,
an FIR came to be filed against Atonu Datta and the present
petitioner.
3) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no charge of
cheating is levelled against the petitioner and no material is
collected. The petitioner and other 16 were the employees of the
complainant company. The petitioner had tendered her resignation
which was accepted by HR Manager of the company. No property was
entrusted to the petitioner and had not breached any trust.
Therefore, she has not committed any offence as alleged against her.
The complaint is cleverly drafted only with a view to cause
harassment to the petitioner. The petitioner has no past antecedent.
He has also submitted that, this is a simple case of breach of service
contract and for that, civil action is required to be initiated.
Therefore, he has submitted that, in case of breach of contract, no
prosecution is permissible under criminal law as the dispute is civil in
nature. Every breach of contract would not give rise to the offence of
cheating. Further, there is no material to prove the allegation of
conspiracy. Therefore, present FIR is filed, giving a cloak of
criminality.
4) Over and above the above submissions and to buttress his
arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on (1)
Hari Prasad Chamaria Vs. Bishun Kumar Surekha & Ors, reported in
1973 (2) SCC 823, (2) Vijay Kumar Ghai vs. State of W.B., reported in
2022 (7) SCC 124, (3) Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia Vs. State of
Punjab, reported in 2009 (7) SCC 712, (4) Rajiv Thapar Vs. Madan Lal
Page 2 of 14
Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 22:04:58 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/16073/2024 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
Kappor, reported in 2013 (3) SCC 330, (5) Arvindbhai Maganlal Master
Vs. State of Gujarat & 1, reported in 2014 SCC Online Guj. 13301, (6)
Kairunaben Jamaluddin Kadri Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors, reported in
2017 (4) GLR 3553, (7) Naresh Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka,
reported in 2024 Online SC 268 (8) Vesa Holdings Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs.
State of Kerala, reported in 2015 (8) SCC 293 and (9) Sarabjit Kaur Vs.
State of Punjab & Ors, reported in 2023 (5) SCC 360.
5) Per contra, learned APP for the State has opposed the present
petition and contended that, the petitioner is named in the FIR. Now
chargesheet is filed and sufficient material is collected. Statement of
the witnesses have been recorded, which clearly suggests the
involvement of the petitioner. This is not a case where without
evidence and material, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in
the offence. Therefore, present petition does not deserve any
consideration.
6) Mr. D. M. Varandani, learned counsel for the complainant has adopted
the arguments made by ld. APP and contended that, accused No.1
Atonu Datta used the name of the complainant company’s unit –
Alceon and established two companies under the names “Alceon
Meditech” and “Design Logic.” The accused No.1 and present
petitioner misled the customers of the complainant company and
diverted payments that were due to the complainant from client
companies into the bank accounts of his own companies and other
personal accounts, totaling an amount of Rs.1,33,69,750.82/-. Both
the accused misused the official email ID and laptop provided by the
complainant company to the petitioner and carried out a technically
sophisticated fraud against the complainant Company. Not only that,
the orders are also taken by creating impression among the
customers companies of the complainant that both the companies of
accused are the same and deceptively similar. Email was also created
Page 3 of 14
Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 22:04:58 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/16073/2024 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
by the accused and audit was managed and from the email, several
messages and emails are collected, which suggests the involvement
of the petitioner in the said offence. Petitioner had offered her
resignation as a part of pre-planned strategy and the same was
accepted by HR Manager and then joined the company of accused
No.1 and siphoned off the amount. Each and every mails of
complainant company, were also sent to the accused No.1, so that
such data can be kept in a loop and keep watch the business of the
complainant company. Other 16-17 witnesses who were employees
of the complainant company having control over the data, made to sit
them overnight for 2 days at the instance of the petitioner and had
stored all data of the complainant company for accused No.1’s
companies. Thereby, prima facie involvement of the petitioner is
revealed and criminal breach of trust is attracted. After lodgment of
the complaint and filing of the chargesheet, she had left the company
of accused No.1. Now chargesheet is filed, then mini trial is not
permissible. Therfore, this is not a simple case of breach of contract.
The petitioner in collusion with accused No.1 committed offence of
cheating and criminal breach of trust.
Hence, no case is made out to exercise extraordinary
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C and
therefore, present petition deserves to be dismissed.
7) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the
material placed on record, it appears that respondent No.2 is the
complainant, who runs firm namely Eupraxia Center for Clinical
Excellence and having 48.50 % partnership and his wife Shruti
Prashant Kirkire having 49.50 % partnership in the said firm, whereas,
accused No.1 Atonu Datta was partner of 1 %. Accused No.1 with an
intent to defraud the company, forged documents to establish two
new companies i.e. “Alceon Meditech” and “Design Logic” while he
was performing his duty as a partner in the complainant company.
Page 4 of 14 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 22:04:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/16073/2024 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025 undefined
The accused No.1 keeping the complainant firm in the dark, started to
receive orders from the customers of the firm of the complainant and
transferred the amount in the bank accounts of the two firms of
accused No.1. In the said work, the petitioner misused the official
email ID and laptop provided by the complainant company to her and
thereby, both the accused carried out a technically sophisticated
fraud against the complainant Company.
8) It further appears that, with an intent to siphon off the amount and
to divert the customers of complainant firm, accused No.1 was under
planning and under his control, petitioner was working and by
hatching conspiracy as a part of pre-planning, siphoned off the
amount. In the laptop provided to the petitioner, statement of
accounts of two firms were found. The account of the petitioner
which was maintained with HDFC Bank is found and account and
statements of Design Logic is also found and in the said company,
accused No.1 has transferred the payment of respondent No.2
Company Rs.1,33,69,750/- and thereby, he has committed an offence
of criminal breach of trust. Statement of accounts were found from
the laptop of the petitioner. During investigation, pendrive and other
material is also collected.
9) From the record, it further emerges that present petitioner was
involved in the above conspiracy from the beginning and she was
aware of this conspiracy from the beginning and in collusion with
accused No.1, she conspired with the accused No.1 to commit
embezzlement and fraud with the complainant. When the petitioner
and accused No.1 were in the company of the complainant, their
official e-mail was [email protected] and
[email protected] and they maliciously informed the
complainant’s customers and other regulatory bodies about the
newly created e-mail IDs [email protected] andPage 5 of 14
Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 22:04:58 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/SCR.A/16073/2024 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
[email protected] and maliciously informed those
customers/regulatory bodies that a new company called ALCEON was
going to be formed and all the purchase orders and work of Eupraxia
Center for Clinical Excellence were transferred to that new company.
Such email IDs are deceptively similar and easily create impression
among the customers and others that the company is the same and
one. The petitioner and Atunu Dutta told all the employees working
in the ALCEON Department of the complainant that they should
resign from the complainant’s company and informed the last date of
employment is 28.02.2023. All these resignation emails were of the
same format and the language of all those resignations was the same
and the same were approved by accused No.1 Atunu Dutta without
the permission of the complainant. Therefore, it is learnt that after
28.02.2023, the information of this newly formed company like
details of the complainant’s projects, details of their customers,
information of their certificates issued by regulatory bodies, which
the accused in this work obtained through criminal breach of trust,
clearly shows the conspiracy to misuse it by the accused’s new
company to get illegal benefits.
10) It is evident from the client’s e-mail dated 13.06.2022 that when the
petitioner and accused No.1 were working with the complainant, in
the e-mails they were discussing with the client, they maliciously
started copying the e-mails of the accused’s new company
[email protected] and
[email protected], so that going forward, the
client would be informed that ALCEON Meditech Consultancy
Company is the same company of Atonu Dutta, which was the
complainant’s company. Further, on 14.12.2022, Atanu Dutta wrote
an e-mail to the petitioner stating, “I am thinking whether we can
have the last external surveillance audit in March to coincide with our
plans”, which proves that the petitioner was playing a major role in
Page 6 of 14
Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 22:04:58 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/16073/2024 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
the conspiracy along with the main accused in this case. It is also
noted that, on 23.01.2023, accused No.1 wrote an e-mail to BSI Group
which issues the most important certificate of quality management to
the complainant. In that e-mail written by Atanu Dutta to that
organization, petitioner’s e-mail was found to be in CC and through
that e-mail, the certificate which BSI used to issue to the complainant
after auditing the complainant company, that certificate was
obtained by accused No.1 and petitioner for their newly formed
company. From this, it is clearly shown that petitioner was involved in
a pre-planned conspiracy with the accused No.1 Atanu Dutta.
11) Thereafter, on 17.02.2023 and 06.03.2023, petitioner sent email to
Kariyadi’s customer Nebula Surgical to discuss the details of the work
and she sent that email from the email of accused No.1’s new
company, but in CC of that email, Atunu Dutta’s old Upexia email ID
was included, so that the customer company felt that she was
currently working in the same company with which she was working
earlier. It is revealed from the email sent by accused No.1 to present
petitioner dated 26.02.2023 that Atunu Dutta gave a message to
petitioner that all 16 employees who were yet to copy/obtain the
data from Euprexia Elsion Company were instructed to work till late
and to work even during the holidays of Saturday and Sunday and
were asked to copy the data mentioned in this email, which proves
that the accused had a pre-planned conspiracy and petitioner was an
important part in that conspiracy. The accused wrote the email
together to obtain the complainant’s information with malicious
intent. Thus, both the accused helped each other and conspired to
embezzle money of the complainant company. Further, they also kept
the customers of the complainant’s company in the dark and got a
total of Rs. 1,33,69,750.82/- deposited in his ‘Alceon Meditech
Consulting And Design Logic’ company’s bank accounts and his
other bank accounts to collect the payment from the complainant
Page 7 of 14
Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 22:04:58 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/16073/2024 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
and misused the e-mail id and laptop provided by the complainant’s
company in collusion with present petitioner and committed fraud
with the complainant’s company and there is sufficient evidence
against the accused. Hence, prima facie involvement of the petitioner
is revealed and therefore, this is not a simple case where the
petitioner had played role under the instruction of accused No.1
being an employee.
12) It is a clear-cut case of criminal breach of trust, considering the
appointment, role and responsibilities of the petitioner. The
petitioner was responsible for handling issues related to regulatory
submissions and regularly interacted with customers to manage and
resolve queries, coordinate with regulatory agencies, and train the
designated members. She was entrusted with preparing clients’
designs for regulatory submissions and had access to sensitive
company data, as well as proprietary information. Instead of using
this material for the benefit of the company, she in collusion with
Accused No. 1, misused the data for unauthorized purposes. This
clearly indicates a breach of trust and collusion with Accused No. 1.
13) It is settled position of law that the offence of cheating and criminal
breach of trust cannot go together and each case is required to be
considered on its own merit and based on the facts. The petitioner is
facing charge of criminal conspiracy and therefore, it is appropriate to
refer to Section 61 of BNS, which reads as under:-
“Sec. 61. Criminal Conspiracy :-
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy,
(a) to commit an offence punishable with death,
imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term
of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision
is made in this Sanhita for the punishment of such a
conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had
abetted such offence;
Page 8 of 14
Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 22:04:58 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/16073/2024 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
(b) other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence
punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term not
exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.”
14) Further, it is pertinent to note that, to establish criminal conspiracy
charges under section 120 of the IPC, there must be an agreement, either
expressed or implied. And for that, no proof of direct meeting or
communication is needed. There must be active cooperation. In other words,
joint evil intent is mandatory. When any act is done even though it is lawful
but done by illegal means, it constitutes criminal conspiracy.
15) The first ingredient of criminal conspiracy is agreement between two
or more persons. This agreement is the crux of the offence and can be
explicit or implicit, written or oral. The second essential component is the
intention to commit an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means. The intent
should directly related to the outcome that the conspirators plan to achieve.
16) The essential ingredients of criminal conspiracy are: (i) An agreement
between two or more persons; (ii) The agreement must be related to doing
or causing to be done either (a) an illegal act and (b) an act that is not illegal
in itself but is done by illegal means; (iii) The agreement may be expressed
or implied or partly expressed and partly implied; (iv) As soon as the
agreement is made, the conspiracy arises, and the offence is committed and
(v) the same offence is continued to be committed so long as the
combination persists.
17) It is needless to say that so far as the allegation of conspiracy is
concerned, it is very difficult to collect any direct evidence of conspiracy.
18) So far criminal breach of trust is concerned, it is also imperative to
examine the ingredients of the said offence and whether the allegations
made in the complaint, read on their face, attract those offences under the
Penal Code.
Page 9 of 14 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 22:04:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/16073/2024 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025 undefined
“Section 405 of IPC defines Criminal Breach of Trust which reads as
under: –
“405. Criminal breach of trust.–Whoever, being in any manner
entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property,
dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that
property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in
violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which
such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express
or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such
trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits
“criminal breach of trust”.
The essential ingredients of the offense of criminal breach of
trust are:-
(1) The accused must be entrusted with the property or with
dominion over it, (2) The person so entrusted must use that
property, or; (3) The accused must dishonestly use or dispose of
that property or wilfully suffer any other person to do so in
violation,
(a) of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such
trust is to be discharged, or;
(b) of any legal contract made touching the discharge of such
trust.
24. “Entrustment” of property under Section 405 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 is pivotal to constitute an offence under this.
The words used are, ‘in any manner entrusted with property’.
So, it extends to entrustments of all kinds whether to clerks,
servants, business partners or other persons, provided they are
holding a position of ‘trust’. A person who dishonestly
misappropriates property entrusted to them contrary to the
terms of an obligation imposed is liable for a criminal breach of
trust and is punished under Section 406 of the Penal Code.
19) Herein, the petitioner, being an employee of the company, was in a
position of control over the company’s data and orders. By virtue of
this control, she was in a fiduciary relationship with the company. The
data and other intangible assets entrusted to her fall within the
definition of “property” under the law. In her fiduciary capacity, she
was obligated to use this property solely for the benefit of the
complainant firm. However, instead of fulfilling this duty, she in
Page 10 of 14
Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 22:04:58 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/16073/2024 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
collusion with Accused No. 1, misused her position and dominion over
the property, resulting in the misappropriation of company funds.
Therefore, prima facie, it appears that the petitioner has committed
the offence of criminal breach of trust.
20) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that this is
a civil dispute and does not constitute a case of criminal breach of
trust. However, it is well settled law that there is a distinction
between a civil wrong and a criminal offence. While certain actions
may give rise to civil liability, they can also attract criminal liability if
the requisite mens rea is present. In the present case, it is clearly a
case of criminal breach of trust. Although there may be elements of a
civil wrong, the presence of mens rea gives rise to criminal liability as
well. In this regard, it is refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in case of Sudhir Shantilal Mehta Vs. CBI, reported in 2009
(8) SCC 1, wherein, it is held as under:-
“The criminal breach of trust would, inter alia, mean using or
disposing of the property by a person who is entrusted with or has
otherwise dominion thereover. Such an act must not only be done
dishonestly but also in violation of any direction of law or any
contract express or implied relating to carrying out the trust…”
21) Here in the case on hand, the petitioner rather to show her liability,
responsibility and loyalty towards the complainant company, in
connivance with accused No.1 provided the crucial data and
facilitated accused No.1 in carrying out a technically sophisticated
fraud against the complainant Company. Therefore, involvement of
the petitioner is clearly born out from such facts.
22) So far as the other contention that for civil dispute, criminal
proceedings is not maintainable, is not acceptable. In this regard,
reference is required to be made on the decision of Kamal Shivaji
Page 11 of 14
Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 22:04:58 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/16073/2024 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
Pokarnekar Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2019) 14 SCC
350. Considering the same, Prima facie criminal breach of trust is
made out and criminal complaint cannot be quashed on the ground of
allegation made therein appears to be of civil nature. Therefore, the
authorities relied on by learned counsel for the petitioners would not
avail any assistance.
23) In light of the aforesaid provisions of law and perusing the record, it
reveals that the case on hand is only a case of simple breach of
contract or promise, but more than that, the accused persons with
malafide intention, hatched a conspiracy with an intent to commit
financial embezzlement and cheating and during the tenure at the
complainant company, accused No.1 used the name of the
complainant company’s unit – Alcon and established two companies
under the names “Alceon Meditech” and “Design Logic.” Thereafter,
accused misled the customers of the complainant company and
diverted payments that were due to the complainant from client
companies into the bank accounts of his own companies and other
personal accounts, totaling an amount of Rs.1,33,69,750.82/-.
Furthermore, by misusing the official email ID and laptop provided by
the complainant company to the petitioner, the petitioner carried out
a technically sophisticated fraud against the complainant Company.
Therefore, this is not a case of simple breach of trust, promise or
agreement of contract. Here is a clear cut case of cheating. 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
filed with malafide intention or with a view to tarnish the image of
the petitioner, then question does not arise to invoke the power
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
24) Further, criminal proceeding would have to proceed entirely based on
the allegations made in a complaint or the evidence collected during
Page 12 of 14
Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 22:04:58 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/16073/2024 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
the investigation. It is not justified 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).
25) In a decision of Priti Sharaf Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, reported in
AIR 2021 (SC) 1531, remedy is provided for breach of contract and
considering the fact that the alleged transaction is civil in nature is
not a ground to quash the proceedings under Sections 406 and 420 of
Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Iqbal
alias Bala and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
reported in (2023)8 SCC 734 has held that after filing of quashing
petition, if the investigation is completed and charge-sheet is filed
against one Petitioner in the meantime, then the proper remedy for
accused in such case would be to prefer discharge application.
26) It is also 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. Further, in the case of Ramveer Upadhyay &
Anr. vs. State of U.P. & Anr. reported in 2022 OnLine SC 484,
Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Aryan Singh etc., reported in
2023 SCC Online Sc 379 and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs.
State of Maharashtra reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, it is
observed and held as under:
“Even though, the inherent power of the High Court under
Section 482 of the CrPC, to interfere with criminal
proceedings is wide, such power has to be exercised with
circumspection, in exceptional cases. Jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the CrPC is not be exercised for the asking.”
Page 13 of 14
Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 22:04:58 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/16073/2024 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
27) Whatever contentions raised by the applicants are defences of the
petitioner, which cannot be looked into at this stage in exercise of
power under Section 482 of the CrPC and this Court should not hold
mini-trial while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of
the Cr.P.C. Even, present case does not satisfy any of the parameters
laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal reported in (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335
warranting the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC
vis-à-vis the quashing of impugned FIR. Further, the Court will not be
justified in embarking upon any enquiry as to the reliability of
genuineness / otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint and
also that, the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer any
arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims and
caprice..
28) In wake of aforesaid discussion, present petition fails and same is
hereby dismissed. However, it is needless to say that, the
observations made in the order are tentative in nature.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.)
SUCHIT
Page 14 of 14
Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 22:04:58 IST 2025