KAUSHALBHAI JAGDISHBHAI ASODIYA vs STATE OF GUJARAT
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
R/CR.MA/850/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 850 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
KAUSHALBHAI JAGDISHBHAI ASODIYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. MANTHAN V SHUKLA(10021) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS RATNA VORA(2251) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. ROHAN SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
Date : 22/07/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By way of this petition under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.), the
petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the FIR being CR No.I-
11191041211787 of 2021 registered with the Shaherkotda Police
Station, Ahmedabad City, for the offence punishable under Sections
469, 500, 501, 120(B) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for
short “IPC”) and to quash all other consequential proceedings arising
therefrom.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the impugned complaint is
filed at the instance of respondent No.2 – original complainant, as he
Page 1 of 7
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 15:10:12 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/850/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2026
was working as Public Notary and also the member of Bahujan
Samaj Party and also running NGO and also publishes magazine
namely “Nyayik Samiksha”. On 05.07.2021, the brother of the
complainant received WhatsApp message which was fake news
from Nimesh Dodiya (accused No.1 in the FIR) and thereafter, the
brother of complainant asked the accused No.1 as to in which
newspaper the news cutting which he forwarded on WhatsApp was
published. As accused No.1 did not reply to the brother of
complainant and accused No.1 used to write message against the
complainant and brother of the complainant in WhatsApp group of
community. So, the brother of the complainant and complainant tried
to pacify the situation on 02.07.2021 and at that time accused No.1
got angry and started quarreling with complainant and his brother
and thereafter cross complaint was filed by both the sides at
Shaherkotda Police Station. Subsequently, on 06.07.2021, the
complainant got fake newspaper cutting on WhatsApp from his
friend. Upon inquiry, he did not reply as to from whom he received
the said newspaper cutting and thereby circulating the said
information, he committed the offence of defamation of present
complainant. Thereafter, it is alleged that accused No.3 was
repeatedly posting messages on social media and defamed the
respondent No.2. Thus, it is alleged that accused persons in
conspiracy and connivance of each other have circulated the fake
news with intention to defame the complainant and his political
party namely Bahujan Samaj Party. Hence, in this regard complaint
Page 2 of 7
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 15:10:12 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/850/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2026
came to be filed. Except this no allegations are levelled.
3. Heard, learned advocate Mr. Manthan V. Shukla for the
petitioner, learned advocate Ms. Ratna Vora for the respondent No.2
– complainant and learned Additional Public Prosecute Mr. Rohan
Shah for the respondent – State.
4. The role attributed to the present petitioner is, only forwarding
a photograph of a newspaper namely Young Leader, Ahmedabad,
which was forwarded to Nishyal Jashavantbhai Sangani who in turn
forwarded the said message to the complainant. Thus, to attract the
provisions of Section 469 of the IPC, a person has to first forge a
document with an intention to harm the reputation or knowing that it
is likely to be used for that purpose (harming reputation). However,
from the reading of the entire FIR as well as from the papers of
chargesheet, both are conspicuously silent with regards to harming
reputation. Even if the allegations are taken as it is on the face of it
do not constitute offence under Section 469 of the IPC. Not an iota
of evidence is collected during investigation, nor is there any
whisper in the FIR nor in the counter of the chargesheet, which
would reveal attracting the provisions of Section 469 of the IPC.
5. The allegation is that the complainant received photo of one
newspaper cutting in WhatsApp, however, the present petitioner has
only forwarded it to one Nishyal Sangani, who had also preferred a
Criminal Misc. Application for quashing and setting aside the FIR
Page 3 of 7
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 15:10:12 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/850/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2026
being No.859 of 2022, which came to be allowed by order dated
09.09.2024 passed by coordinate bench of this Court, who in turn
had forwarded the said newspaper cutting to the complainant, except
for this no role is attributed to the present petitioner. He has not
indulged into circulating the said news if at all is if it is fake, coupled
with the fact that the publisher and/or the editor of the said
newspaper are not made accused in the impugned FIR or in the
chargesheet also, who have allegedly published the alleged
defamatory statement as per the complainant. But, for the role of
forwarding the said newspaper cutting to co-accused Mr. Nishyal
Sangani, no role is attributed to the present petitioner.
6. Thus, when no offence under Section 500 or 501 of the IPC is
made out against the present petitioner, more particularly, for
lodging of a complaint for attracting provisions of Sections 500 and
501 of the IPC, a complaint under Section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C. is
required to be lodged by the aggrieved person before the concerned
jurisdictional Magistrate and that no FIR is maintainable as both
these offences are non-cognizable offence.
7. Thus, what has been forwarded by the present petitioner would
also not fall within the four corners of the definition of Section 469
of IPC namely defamation. Since the FIR and the papers of the
chargesheet are conspicuously silent, as to how the complainant and
or his party is/are harmed defamed. Thus, it cannot be said that the
petitioner has forged any news item, more particularly, there is
Page 4 of 7
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 15:10:12 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/850/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2026
nothing on record from the papers of investigation that such news
item was forged by the present petitioner. Under the circumstances,
provisions of Section 469, 500, 501, 120(B) and 114 of the IPC are
not made out.
8. The principle governing quashing of the FIR are well settled in
the case of State of Haryana Vs. B.Bhajanlal & ors., reported in
AIR 1992 SC 604 , wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court summed up the
proposition of law in paragraph 102, 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 do not 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
Page 5 of 7
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 15:10:12 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/850/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2026
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 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."
9. Considering the settled principle as stated in the above referred
case, though the powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. are wide,
however, are to be exercised with great caution. The Court must be
careful while exercising its power based on sound principles. The
inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate
prosecution, and the High Court should normally refrain from giving
any prima facie decision in a case where the facts are hazy or
incomplete, more so when the evidence has not been collected and
produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual
or legal, are of the magnitude and cannot be seen in their true
Page 6 of 7
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 15:10:12 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/850/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2026
perspective without sufficient material. However, there are no hard-
and-fast rules with regards to the cases where the High Court can
exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction for quashing the proceedings
at any stage.
10. Considering the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of State of Haryana (supra), the present case prima
facie falls within the parameters laid down in paragraph 102 of the
said case, more particularly, 5 and 7. If the present proceedings are
allowed to be continued against the petitioner, would amount to
abuse of process of law, and thus, the case on hand is a fit case to
exercise the powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
11. In view of the reasons stated herein above present petition is
allowed. The impugned FIR being CR No.I-11191041211787 of
2021 registered with the Shaherkotda Police Station, Ahmedabad
City, alongwith all its consequential proceedings is quashed and set
aside qua the present petitioner only.
12. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is
permitted.
(P. M. RAVAL, J)
NITIN MAKWANA
Page 7 of 7
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 15:10:12 IST 2026