SHIRINBEN SAHIL HUSAIN SAIYIED vs STATE OF GUJARAT

R/CR.MA/7079/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 7079 of 2025

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER

==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
SHIRINBEN SAHIL HUSAIN SAIYIED
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. RASHESH A PATEL(8802) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS. MONALI BHATT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER

Date : 25/06/2026

JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP Ms. Monali Bhatt
waives service of Rule on behalf of the Respondent State.
2. The present application is filed under Section 528 of the BNSS
of the 2023 for quashing the FIR registered with City A - Division
Police Station, Bharuch, Gujarat, for the offence punishable under
Sections 4(3), 5(c) of Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020,
being CR No.11199010241271 of 2024 dated 25.12.2024.
3. As per the allegations made in the FIR wherein the present
Page 1 of 6
Uploaded by AMIT DAHYABHAI ITALIAN(HCW0112) on Tue Jun 30 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 01 02:04:35 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/7079/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2026
applicant is arraigned as a sole accused. The complainant
purchased a property being Building No.09 bearing survey no. 132/2
paiki B/P/9 admeasuring 160 sq. mts. situated at Sherpura Village,
Chistiya Township, Dahej bypass road, Bharuch, from the original
owners on 26.09.2000 vide registered sale deed being no.3843 and
since 2001, the complainant is staying in the said property. It is
alleged that in the year December 2020, the applicant and her
husband Sahil Husain Saiyed had approached the son of the
complainant namely Fazal Rehman Abdul Aziz Patel with a request
that they are doctors and they had purchased some house, but the
process of registration is going on, and therefore, they required the
house for 15 days. It was requested to provide upper floor of the
house of the complainant. On assurance that within a period of 15
days they would shift to their own house, the permission was given
to said house for 15 days. Upon completion of 15 days, again
request was made to extend the accommodation for a few more
days, and upon completion of one month, the complainant has
informed to vacate the premises, the threats were issued by the
applicant and stated that they would not vacate the premises at any
costs. The complainant made several requests to the applicant,
however, that was converted into quarrels and as the present
applicant did not vacate the premises for 3 years, the online
application was filed under the Gujarat Land Grabbing Act on
22.07.2023 wherein the Land Grabbing Committee has passed an
order on 17.12.2024 to lodge the complaint, and thereafter, the
impugned complaint was filed which is a subject matter of challenge
before this Court.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr. R. A. Patel for the applicant and
learned APP Ms. Bhatt for the respondent – State. It is submitted
Page 2 of 6
Uploaded by AMIT DAHYABHAI ITALIAN(HCW0112) on Tue Jun 30 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 01 02:04:35 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/7079/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2026
that the present applicant is willfully targeted by the State agencies
including the police officer by lodging the false complaint. It is
submitted that the present applicant had occupied the first floor of
the house on rent with a consent and with oral understanding to pay
the rent at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month and the applicant had
paid Rs.1,00,000/- in the month of August, 2020 as deposit. The
applicant had also paid Rs.6,000/- as advanced deposit of two
months. It is submitted that the complainant has pocketed
Rs.72,000/- in piecemeal manner under the guise of payment of
light bill, however, eventually, light connection was disconnected
due to non-payment of the bill. It is submitted that the applicant was
attacked on 14.07.2023 by the complainant and the applicant
suffered several injuries on head and knees, but till date no action
has been taken upon the said complaint filed by the applicant. It is
submitted that though the complainant was agreed to allow the
applicant to stay on rent, however, due to inter-caste marriage of
the applicant, respondent no.2 attacked the applicant and
subsequently lodged the FIR. It is submitted that earlier the
complaint by the complainant came to be rejected by the Land
Grabbing Committee on 13.06.2022 by holding that since the matter
is between the tenant and landlord and pertaining to land, instead
of approaching the civil court the complaint is filed. It is submitted
that though the complainant collected the documents under the
premise to execute the rent agreement, but he did not execute the
same and false complaint is filed against the present applicant. In
that background, it is submitted that continuation of process is
nothing but an abuse of process of law.
5. Learned APP Ms. Bhatt for the State has opposed this
application on the ground that investigation is still not concluded
Page 3 of 6
Uploaded by AMIT DAHYABHAI ITALIAN(HCW0112) on Tue Jun 30 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 01 02:04:35 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/7079/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2026
and the applicant has been granted regular bail on condition to
vacate the premises which was subsequently not complied and the
bail was cancelled. It is further submitted that after she was taken
to custody she was released on temporary bail, however, at that
time also, the applicant remained absconded for 22 days and was
caught by the police. It is submitted that the order passed by this
Court confirming the order of the learned Sessions Court cancelling
the bail was challenged before the Apex Court which was also
finalized and SLP came to be dismissed vide order dated
08.06.2026. It is submitted that in that background the inherent
jurisdiction under Section 528 does not require to be exercised, and
application is required to be dismissed.
6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned
advocate for the respective parties and on referring the allegations
made in the FIR which is filed under the Land Grabbing Act against
the present applicant who is the sole accused, it emerges that the
complainant has permitted the applicant to occupy the upper floor
of his house for 15 days in the month of December 2020.
Subsequently, upto year 2023, she did not vacate the premises
rather has issued the threats to the complainant. The complainant
filed the application before the Land Grabbing Committee which was
ordered in favour of the complainant on 17.12.2024 and impugned
FIR is lodged. It is contended by the applicant that the applicant was
permitted to use the premises by taking the rent at the rate of
Rs.3,000/- and by taking advance of amount of Rs.1,00,000/-,
however, the applicant fails to produce any material on record to
substantiate that defence. Undisputedly, the premises owned by the
present complainant is not vacated by the present applicant, in that
background, it cannot be said that no ingredients of the Gujarat
Page 4 of 6
Uploaded by AMIT DAHYABHAI ITALIAN(HCW0112) on Tue Jun 30 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 01 02:04:35 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/7079/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2026
Land Grabbing Act is made out.
7. In addition to that, the conduct of the applicant is also
required to be noted. The application has been filed for regular bail
being Criminal Misc. Application No.4023 of 2025 wherein the
learned advocate has contended that the applicant is ready and
willing to hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the
disputed property to the first informant within a period of one week
from the date of her release. This Court has passed the order
putting the condition while granting the bail to file an undertaking
before the concerned Trial Court at the time of executing bond that
she will vacate the premises within a period of one week from the
date of her release. In addition to that the condition was also
imposed to mark the presence before the concerned police station
once in a month for a period of six months between 11.00 a.m. to
2.00 p.m. as well as the condition to surrender passport; if any, to
the trial court within a week. As after two months upon getting
released though filed an undertaking by the applicant none of the
conditions were complied by her. The application was filed by the
complainant for cancellation of bail which came to be allowed by the
learned trial court vide order date 03.05.2025, and she was taken
into custody.
8. There after, a regular bail application came to be filed before
the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch, being Criminal
Misc. Application No.401 of 2025 which came to be rejected by the
learned Sessions Court vide order dated 06.06.2025. The said order
was challenged before this Court by filing the successive regular bail
application being Criminal Misc. Application No.12559 of 2025
wherein also this Court has rejected the said application by
Page 5 of 6
Uploaded by AMIT DAHYABHAI ITALIAN(HCW0112) on Tue Jun 30 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 01 02:04:35 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/7079/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2026
observing that the applicant has made a false declaration that the
application ready and willing to hand over the vacate and peaceful
possession of the disputed property to the complainant. It is
observed that the applicant had misled the Court by making false
declaration, and therefore, this Court did not entertain the
application for regular bail. The said order was challenged before
the Apex Court by filing the SLP (Criminal) No.35083 of 2026 which
was also dismissed vide order dated 08.06.2026. Not only that the
applicant has filed temporary bail application on 29.01.2026 which
was granted for 7 days and the applicant has to surrender on
06.02.2026, however, upto 28.02.2026, the applicant did not
surrender and there after she was caught by the police and sent to
custody.
9. The conduct of the applicant suggests that she firstly made a
false declaration before this Court, subsequently, though the
conditions were imposed to vacate the premises to hand over the
passport and to mark the presence before the concerned police
station, however, upon getting released none of the conditions were
complied by the applicant. In that background also the application is
not required to be entertained. Considering the overall
circumstances as well as the criteria mentioned in the case of State
of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 , this
Court does not find any merits in the application, hence, the present
application is hereby rejected. Rule is discharged.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
AMIT ITALIAN
Page 6 of 6
Uploaded by AMIT DAHYABHAI ITALIAN(HCW0112) on Tue Jun 30 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 01 02:04:35 IST 2026