KANAIYALAL TRIKAMLAL PATEL vs JIGNASHA KAMLESH GAMI

Court
Gujarat High Court

R/CR.MA/31287/2016 (GJHC240556422016) JUDGMENT DATED:
01/09/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 31287 of 2016

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
KANAIYALAL TRIKAMLAL PATEL
Versus
JIGNASHA KAMLESH GAMI & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RASESH H PARIKH(3862) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR.HEMANG H PARIKH(2628) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. K. M. ANTANI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
SUDHANSHU A JHA(8345) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

Date : 01/09/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Petitioner before this Court has invoked the provisions of
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Prosecutor, 1973 (for short
“Cr.P.C.”), praying to quash the set aside the FIR being C.R. No.I-
83 of 2016, dated 23.08.2016, lodged before the Elisbridge Police
Station, Ahmedabad City, for the offences punishable under Sections
354, 354A, 354C, 354D and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for
short “IPC”), alongwith the consequential proceedings arising
therefrom.
Page 1 of 9
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 18:51:39 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/31287/2016 (GJHC240556422016) JUDGMENT DATED:
01/09/2026
2. The facts as narrated in the FIR in nutshell are that in view of
th
contract dated 20 June 2015 entered between the Federation of
Industry and Association and G. J. Advertising and Management
Services Private Limited, the informant - respondent No.1 herein is
entitled to claim recovery of Rs.22,00,000/- from the Federation of
Industry and Association. It is further stated in the FIR that
WhatsApp group was created on 27.07.2016 to inform all the
members of the group about the alleged misbehaviour with the
informant - respondent No.1 herein and misappropriation of money
by Arvind Gajera. It is also alleged that Kiritbhai Patel later in a day
came to the office of the informant and stated that her message in
WhatsApp group was inappropriate and that now she has to come to
the flat of Arvind Gajera failing which no money will be paid to her.
It is also alleged that, on 21.07.2016, i.e. 6 days prior to the lodging
of the FIR, she went to meet the present petitioner. However on that
day the petitioner was not present at the office of Federation of
Industries and Association, as some other meeting was also going on
at that time, and in the said meeting, Arvind Gajera was present and
in view of the presence of the informant, Arvind Gajera left the
meeting. Thereafter, the informant informed Mr. Jagdish Ramani
about the alleged misbehaviour of Arvind Gajera. It is further stated
that Arvind Gajera intercepted her at 6:30 evening and verbally
abused her, threatened and also reiterated that she will not be paid
the money, he has also molested her previously and physically and
mentally harassed her.
Page 2 of 9
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 18:51:39 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/31287/2016 (GJHC240556422016) JUDGMENT DATED:
01/09/2026
2.1. It is further averred in the FIR that somewhere in December
2015, during various events at Jamnagar, Vapi, Rajkot, Surat and
Vadodara, etc. Arvind Gajera inappropriately behaved and touched
the informant. It is also averred in the FIR that the informant then
contacted Kiritbhai Patel and the present petitioner and informed
about the alleged misbehaviour of Arvind Gajera, and on informing
present petitioner, he laughed away what was stated by the informant
to him and also the petitioner stated that if she wanted to progress in
the business, she would have to succumb to such type of demands.
2.2. Hence, the present petition.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Rasesh Parikh for the petitioner would
submit that except for the bare allegation that the present petitioner
laughed away to what was informed to the petitioner herein, there
are no any allegations with regard to outraging the modesty of the
informant, inasmuch as, the only allegations in the FIR and from the
papers of the charge-sheet are to the effect that the present petitioner
did not give heed to what was stated by the informant and asked her
to accept such type of demands if she wants to grow and develop in
business.
3.1. Learned advocate would further submit that the FIR is nothing
but an pressure tactics to see that the outstanding amount is
recovered by hook or crook by roping in the present petitioner.
Page 3 of 9
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 18:51:39 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/31287/2016 (GJHC240556422016) JUDGMENT DATED:
01/09/2026
Learned advocate would further submit that the informant has
initially chosen not to disclose the alleged date of offence or
misbehaviour by Arvind Gajera when she created WhatsApp group.
However, subsequently, in FIR states that in somewhere in
December 2015, Arvind Gajera misbehaved with her during their
visit at different districts of Gujarat. Even if the said alleged
misbehaviour took place with the informant, the FIR is lodged
almost after 8 months without there being any averments against the
present petitioner with regard to outraging her modesty or sexual
harassment or voyeurism or stalking. Thus, even if the averments are
taken on the face of it, do not constitute offence as stated
hereinabove, as far as role of the present petitioner. Hence, argued to
allow the present petition.
4. Per Contra , learned advocate Mr. Sudhanshu Jha for the
informant - respondent No.1 herein would submit that it is an
undisputed fact that Arvind Gajera against whom the complaints
were made, who was the then Secretary of the Association is a very
good friend of the present petitioner, and thus, the petitioner despite
being head of the said institution had never acted on the complaints
and has completely failed to perform his duties, and on the contrary
has pressurized the informant to compromise with the illegal
demands of the Secretary.
4.1. Learned advocate would further submit that the informant had
Page 4 of 9
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 18:51:39 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/31287/2016 (GJHC240556422016) JUDGMENT DATED:
01/09/2026
entered into a contract with the Federation of Industries (FIA) for
‘GUJTECH-2016 Industrial Expo’, and the said contract was signed
by the present petitioner being President of the said Federation.
Thus, the present petitioner is involved as a part and parcel of the
said alleged crime and such crime was committed at the instance of
the present petitioner which would clearly reflect the intention on the
part of the present petitioner too.
4.2. Learned advocate would further submit that by hatching
conspiracy against the respondent, the present petitioner has also
involved himself in the very crime, and despite of having
continuously informed about the inappropriate behaviour and
demand of Arvind Gajera and that of one Kirit Patel, the present
petitioner, rather than probing into the matter, had continuously
ignored the complaint made by the informant, and despite of there
being continuous oral and written complaints made by the present
informant to the petitioner, no heed was given, and when the charge-
sheet is already filed, and when the present petitioner was also
present in the guest house as well as the hotel where the alleged
incident took place, even then, the present petitioner, rather than
restraining other accused, had asked the informant to settle the
matter and not to disclose with regards to the alleged incident to
anyone, and has thus argued that prima facie case is made out
against the present petitioner, and has prayed to reject the present
petition.
Page 5 of 9
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 18:51:39 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/31287/2016 (GJHC240556422016) JUDGMENT DATED:
01/09/2026
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. K. M. Antani would
submit that that the CCTV footage of the Dharamshala at Jamnagar
could not be retrieved because of the fact that it does not store
recording beyond period of 15 days, and as such, presence of the
present petitioner could not be collected during investigation qua the
allegations made against Arvind Gajera is concerned at Jamnagar.
However, would submit that with regards to the incident that took
place at Surat at Ginger Hotel, in the CCTV footage, the presence of
the petitioner in the restaurant is not made out. However, his stay at
the Ginger Hotel is surfacing on record, and has thus argued that
when the present petitioner was also present when the alleged
offence took place, provisions of Section 107 would be squarely
attracted, making him punishable under Section 114 of the IPC, and
thus, argued to reject the present petition.
6. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. This Court
has gone through the FIR as well as paper of charge-sheet appended
with the petition, as well as handed over by learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the perusal of this Court. Except for the
presence of the present petitioner hotel at Surat, however, was not
present in the restaurant when the alleged incident took place
between Gajera and the informant - respondent No.1 herein, would
be significant. Even from the reading of the entire FIR or even
subsequent statement of the informant dated 24.08.2016, there is no
direct overt act attributed to the present petitioner in any of the
Page 6 of 9
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 18:51:39 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/31287/2016 (GJHC240556422016) JUDGMENT DATED:
01/09/2026
offences attracting provisions of Sections 354, 354A, 354C or 354D
of the IPC. However, what has been argued is that despite of having
informed the present petitioner with regards to the alleged incidences
by the other accused persons, the present petitioner being head of the
institute did not give heed to such complaints, and on the contrary,
informed the respondent No.1 herein - original informant (victim)
that if she wants to grow in her business, she has to compromise
with such polluted demands and also laughed on. Therefore, at the
outset, what is required to be noted is, as to what does abetment
means.
7. It would be apt to refer to Section 107 of the IPC which reads
as under:
“107. Abetment of a thing -
A person abets the doing of a thing, who -
First. - Instigates any person to do that thing; or
Secondly. - Engages with one or more other person
or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that
thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in
pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the
doing of that thing; or
Thirdly. - Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal
omission, the doing of that thing.
8. Thus, from reading of the aforesaid Section, what is clear is
that for making the present petitioner liable for abetment by
intentional aiding by an act or illegal omission, or instigation, or any
Page 7 of 9
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 18:51:39 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/31287/2016 (GJHC240556422016) JUDGMENT DATED:
01/09/2026
conspiracy, or illegal omission in pursuance to that conspiracy, in
order to facilitate the commission of the act of offence, the presence
of the abettor either before the commission of the crime or offence,
for facilitating commission of the offence, or at the time of
commission of an act constituting the offence is necessary for
making out an offence of abetment. Thus, the intention should be to
aid the commission of a crime. Merely, by uttering the words that
will have to succumb to such polluted demands if she wants to grow
in the business, without there being any intention, will not make the
act of abetment of an offence if the petitioner did not know that the
offence was being committed or contemplated. What is seen is that
after having committed such alleged offence, it was informed to the
present petitioner who did not give heed to such complaints. Thus,
abetment by omission would only be punishable if such omission
were an illegal omission, that is breach of a legal obligation. It is
also relevant to note that mens rea is an essential element for offence
of abetment. The lodging of the FIR by the informant by taking
recourse of law does not aid the commission of an offence by the
present petitioner, though it may amount to concealment of the acts
of the accused of an offence already perpetrated. Mere negligence or
carelessness on the part of the present petitioner cannot be termed as
an abetment.
9. Under the circumstances, the present petition is allowed. The
FIR being C.R. No.I-83 of 2016, dated 23.08.2016, lodged before
Page 8 of 9
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 18:51:39 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/31287/2016 (GJHC240556422016) JUDGMENT DATED:
01/09/2026
the Elisbridge Police Station, Ahmedabad City, alongwith the
consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed and
set aside qua the present petitioner only.
10. It goes without saying that what has been stated here is qua
the present petitioner only, and would not come in the way of the
trial Court to proceed in accordance with law, without being
influenced by the present order.
11. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direst service is
permitted.
(P. M. RAVAL, J)
NITIN MAKWANA
Page 9 of 9
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 18:51:39 IST 2026