DIVYESH PARSHOTTAMBHAI SOLANKI vs STATE OF GUJARAT

Court
Gujarat High Court

R/CR.MA/9608/2014 (GJHC240477512014) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 9608 of 2014

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
DIVYESH PARSHOTTAMBHAI SOLANKI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR BM MANGUKIYA(437) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS BELA A PRAJAPATI(1946) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR KANVA ANTANI APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

Date : 02/09/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present application is filed seeking quashment of the
FIR being C.R.No.I – 306 of 2013 lodged with Sector 7 Police
Station, Gandhinagar for offence punishable under sections
302, 201 and 114 of Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of
Gujarat Police Act.
2. The facts of the case, as per the FIR, in brief are to the
effect that;
2.1 the FIR is lodged by the then Police Inspector, Sector 7
Police Station, Gandhinagar inter alia stating therein that
during duty hours on 23.12.2014 at around 8:00 O’clock, he
received instructions as regards Accidental Death No.64 of
2013 recorded under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. and on receiving
Page 1 of 6
Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 17:49:51 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/9608/2014 (GJHC240477512014) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
information, he reached to Civil Hospital, Gandhinagar where
he found dead body of young boy lying on stretcher sustained
various injuries by knife and accordingly he lodged an FIR
being C.R.No. I – 306 of 2013 for offence punishable under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of
Gujarat Police Act.
2.2 As per prosecution case, the Innova Car wherein the
dead body of young boy was brought, had been recovered by
the Investigating Agency and after drawing necessary
panchnamas and inquest panchnama, the accused named in
the FIR, including the present applicant, have been arrested.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr.Mangukiya, for the applicant
and Mr.Kanva Antani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
the respondent State.
4. Mr.Mangukiya, learned advocate for the applicant would
submit that original accused no.1 viz. Yash @ Lalu Arvindbhai
Sarvaiya, original accused no.2 viz. Jorubhai Bijalbhai
Makvana and original accused no.3 viz. Bharatbhai Ganpatlal
Sharma, who were charged with offence under Sections 302,
201 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code so also Section 135 of
the Gujarat Police Act, have been given clear cut acquittal by
nd
the Sessions Court i.e. learned 2 Additional Sessions Judge,
Gandhinagar, vide judgment and order dated 30.04.2016 in
Sessions Case No.58 of 2014.
4.1 Mr.Mangukiya, learned advocate pressed upon the
aspect that these were the original accused who were charged
Page 2 of 6
Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 17:49:51 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/9608/2014 (GJHC240477512014) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
with offence of murder who have already been acquitted and
the role of the present applicant, as per the prosecution case,
was to the effect that the present applicant had helped in
destroying the evidence. However, Mr.Mangukiya, learned
advocate would submit that version of the present applicant
was not taken into consideration that on receiving call
regarding quarrel took place he immediately reached at the
place of offence where he found quarrel resulted into serious
injuries sustained by the deceased and to save the injured
(deceased) he took him in Innova Car to the Civil Hospital
where he declared dead by the doctor. He would harp on this
aspect that the role alleged against the present applicant is
that the applicant on the way while taking injured to Civil
Hospital destroyed the evidence and cleaned the Innova car,
however, the FIR against the owner of the Innova car
viz.Hemraj Ramjibhai Padaliya has already been quashed and
set aside.
4.2 Mr.Mangukiya, learned advocate relying upon the order
of acquittal of other accused would submit that when the
persons who are clearly alleged to have committed murder
inflicting knife blows on the deceased have been given clear
cut acquittal, the prosecution against the present applicant
even if believing minor role as per the prosecution, is nothing
but an exercise in futility. He, therefore, prays to quash and
set aside the impugned FIR against the present applicant.
5. Per contra, learned APP Mr.Kanva Antani, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State would
fairly submit that it is undisputed fact that in Sessions Case
Page 3 of 6
Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 17:49:51 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/9608/2014 (GJHC240477512014) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
No.58 of 2014 all the original accused Yash @ Lalu Arvindbhai
Sarvaiya, Jorubhai Bijalbhai Makvana and Bharatbhai
Ganpatlal Sharma have been given clear cut acquittal by the
Sessions Court. Whereas other co-accused Hemraj Ramjibhai
Padaliya in whose Innova car body of deceased was taken,
whereby the present applicant was also accompanied, FIR qua
him Hemraj Ramjibhai Padaliya was also quashed and set
aside by order dated 05.05.2014 in Criminal Miscellaneous
Application No.5717 of 2014. He fairly conceded that as such
main accused have been acquitted, no useful purpose would
be served in continuing with the present FIR qua the present
applicant.
6. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
6.1 This Court has gone through the FIR as well as papers of
charge-sheet appended with the application memo. This Court
has also gone through the judgment and order of the Sessions
nd
Court Sessions Court i.e. learned 2 Additional Sessions
Judge, Gandhinagar, vide judgment and order dated
30.04.2016 in Sessions Case No.58 of 2014 whereby clear-cut
has been given to original accused no.1 viz. Yash @ Lalu
Arvindbhai Sarvaiya, original accused no.2 viz. Jorubhai
Bijalbhai Makvana and original accused no.3 viz. Bharatbhai
Ganpatlal Sharma, for offence punishable under Sections 302,
201 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code so also Section 135 of
the Gujarat Police Act. Whereas other co-accused Hemraj
Ramjibhai Padaliya in whose Innova car body of deceased was
taken by the present applicant, FIR qua him was also quashed
and set aside by order dated 05.05.2014 in Criminal
Page 4 of 6
Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 17:49:51 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/9608/2014 (GJHC240477512014) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
Miscellaneous Application No.5717 of 2014.
6.2 Under the circumstances, when the original accused
who had committed murder had been given clear-cut
acquittal, the role attributed to the present applicant, even as
per case of the prosecution, is of disappearing of evidence and
that of not disclosing factum of crime being committed
attracting the provisions of Section 201 and 114 of IPC, more
particularly as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of Madhavrao Jivajirao Scindia and others vs.
Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others reported in
(1988) 1 SCC 692 , in para:7 that when there is bleak
chances of conviction, no useful purpose would be served to
relegate the present applicant back to trial Court to face trial
as the same would be exercise in futility and would be a
criminal wastage of time and money, the present application
requires consideration.
7. Even otherwise, two eye witnesses of the alleged
incident viz. Jayesh Babubhai Patel and Sureshbhai
Chagganbhai Hirani have not supported the case of
prosecution and were declared hostile during trial. Under
such circumstances, no useful purpose would be served in
continuing the FIR.
8. For the reasons recorded above, the present application
is allowed. FIR being C.R.No. I – 306 of 2013 for registered
with Sector 7 Police Station, Gandhinagar against the present
applicant and consequential proceedings thereof, are hereby
Page 5 of 6
Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 17:49:51 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/9608/2014 (GJHC240477512014) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid
extent. Direct service is permitted.
(P. M. RAVAL, J)
MISHRA AMIT V.
Page 6 of 6
Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 17:49:51 IST 2026