SUNIL MAGANBHAI MAKWANA vs STATE OF GUJARAT

Court: Gujarat High Court
Case type: CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION
Decided on: 06-04-2026

<div> R/CR.MA/21894/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 21894 of 2025 ================================================================ SUNIL MAGANBHAI MAKWANA & ORS. Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ================================================================ Appearance: MR. VINESH K CHHAYA(6271) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3 MR. MANAN MAHETA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ </div><table><thead><tr><th>CORAM:</th><th>HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL K. VYAS</th></tr></thead><tbody></tbody></table><div> Date : 06/04/2026 JUDGMENT 1. The present application has been preferred by the applicants-accused, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to quash and set- aside the FIR being I-CR No.35 of 2019 lodged with the Dhrol Police Station, Jamnagar, in connection with the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as well as under Section 135(1) of the Gujarat Police Act, on the ground of settlement arrived at between the parties. Page 1 of 9 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 18:56:32 IST 2026 R/CR.MA/21894/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 2. At the outset, learned advocate Mr.Vinesh Chhaya appearing for the applicants-accused has submitted that since the matter has been settled between the parties, and since the victim-girl, after attaining majority, has consented to it, the application may be allowed and the impugned FIR may be quashed and set-aside qua the present applicants- accused. 3. It appears from the materials on record that the victim-girl, who is the granddaughter of the sister-in-law (‘ nanand ’) of the complainant, was aged about 17 years at the time of the alleged incident. It further appears that on 06.05.2019 she was abducted by the applicants-accused from the legal guardianship of the complainant, with the intention to commit illicit intercourse and a complaint in this regard was registered on 09.07.2019. 4. It appears that the victim-girl was found on 03.07.2023 (i.e. after a period of four years of the alleged incident) and her statement was recorded on the same day, Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 18:56:32 IST 2026 R/CR.MA/21894/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 wherein she had specifically deposed that the accused persons, namely, Mago, Kishore, Sunil, Digo, Talo, Sanjay, Harsukh, Kamlesh and Vijay had committed rape on her against her wish. 5. It further appears that, despite the victim’s explicit narration in her statement, detailing the acts of sexual violence committed on her by the accused persons, the investigating authority failed to immediately refer her for a forensic medical examination or a judicial statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It also appears that the charge pertaining to the offence of rape along with POCSO was not incorporated, which constitutes a serious dereliction of duty. 6. On 03.12.2025, the learned APP appearing for the respondent – State had submitted a report dated 03.12.2025 of the Investigating Officer Ms.A.A.Khokhar, Police Inspector, A.H.T.U., Jamnagar, whereupon certain unusual facts were revealed, raising suspicion about the Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 18:56:32 IST 2026 R/CR.MA/21894/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 conduct of the police. It was noticed that though the complainant had reported about the alleged incident to the Dhrol Police Station immediately on 06.05.2019, yet it did not take any action. The complainant, thereafter, reported the matter to the District Superintendent of Police, who, in turn, directed the Dhrol Police Station to take necessary action, however, instead of complying with the same, the Dhrol police pressurized the complainant to withdraw the complaint. Therefore, the complainant again sent a representation to the District Superintendent of Police, Jamnagar, on 26.06.2019, whereupon the complaint came to be registered on 09.07.2019 (i.e. after a period of more than two months of the alleged incident). 7. It is undisputed that till the filing of the present application, the accused persons, though local residents, were not arrested. Furthermore, since no summary report or any charge-sheet was filed, this Court had directed the Superintendent of Police, Jamnagar, to inquire into the matter and submit a detailed report. In response to the Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 18:56:32 IST 2026 R/CR.MA/21894/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 same, the Superintendent of Police, Jamnagar, submitted his report dated 12.03.2026, wherein he admitted critical lapses on the part of the investigating officers in the investigation and stated that they failed to immediately refer the victim-girl for medical examination, neglected to record her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and omitted to incorporate essential charges related to rape and the POCSO Act. In the report, the Superintendent of Police, Jamnagar, has stated that considering the serious lapses on the part of the erring police officers during the course of the investigation, Shri Yuvrajsinh Jagdishsinh Vaghela, Police Inspector, has been placed under suspension and formal charge-sheets have been issued against Shri Prahladbhai Laxmansinh Vaghela, Police Inspector, Bahucharaji Police Station, Mehsana, and Ms.Afrozbanu Abdulrazak Khokhar, Police Inspector, A.H.T.U., Jamnagar. A proposal seeking appropriate action to be taken in respect of Shri N.D.Solanki (since retired) has also been forwarded to the Home Department. Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 18:56:32 IST 2026 R/CR.MA/21894/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 8. Learned APP Mr.Manan Maheta appearing for the respondent – State, while vehemently opposing the present application seeking quashment of the impugned FIR on the basis of the settlement, has submitted that considering the seriousness and gravamen of the offences committed by the applicants-accused on the minor victim-girl, the present application may not be entertained and the same may be dismissed. 9. The First Information Report and the supporting evidence prima facie establish that the minor victim-girl, who is the granddaughter of the sister-in-law (‘ nanand ’) of the complainant, was abducted on 06.05.2019 by the applicants-accused and thereafter she was subjected to aggravated sexual assault by the accused persons. It also appears from the materials on record that she was found on 03.07.2023 (i.e. after more than four years of the lodgment of the complaint) and had specifically deposed before the police that the accused persons had committed rape on her against her wish, however, the investigating officer failed to Page 6 of 9 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 18:56:32 IST 2026 R/CR.MA/21894/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 conduct timely medical examination of the victim-girl and her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also not recorded. Despite these lacunae, the gravity of the allegations and the victim's explicit narration in her statement underscore a compelling case against the applicants-accused. 10. Considering the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that it cannot overlook or ignore the gravamen and seriousness of the offence committed by the applicants-accused on the minor victim-girl, who is below 17 years of age. Even, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Hiteshbhai Urfe Bholo Gopalbhai Kadivar vs. State of Gujarat and Another ( Criminal Misc. Application No.7634 of 2024, decided on 24.04.2024 ), has held that application seeking quashment of the FIR for the offences under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 6 of the POCSO Act cannot be quashed merely on the basis of compromise. The inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (or Section 528 BNSS) cannot be Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 18:56:32 IST 2026 R/CR.MA/21894/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 invoked to dilute the serious nature of the alleged crime. 11. This Court has also considered the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, reported in 1992 (Supp.1) SCC 335 , while exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, with regard to quashment of the criminal proceedings. 12. While this Court is mindful of its extraordinary jurisdiction to intervene when the material on record fails to disclose a prima facie case or when the proceedings constitute an abuse of the process of law, the instant case does not warrant such interference. Upon careful scrutiny of the materials on record, a prima facie case against the applicants-accused is evident, and it cannot be concluded that the applicants have been falsely implicated. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution must be afforded the opportunity to prove its case through Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 18:56:32 IST 2026 R/CR.MA/21894/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 cogent evidence at trial. 13. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case to exercise inherent discretion to quash the proceedings at the threshold. Consequently, the present application is devoid of any merits and the same is hereby dismissed in limine . 14. Before parting with the judgment, this Court expresses its satisfaction with the action taken by the competent authority against the erring officials and, therefore, finds no occasion to pass further directions in this regard. (VIMAL K. VYAS, J.) /MOINUDDIN Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 18:56:32 IST 2026</div>