VARSHABEN CHANDRAKANT VAGHVANI vs STATE OF GUJARAT

R/SCR.A/5042/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240270002026)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 5042 of 2026

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No

==========================================================
VARSHABEN CHANDRAKANT VAGHVANI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. ALKA B VANIYA(6945) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS AMITA S SHAH(2691) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,4
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MS.DHWANI TRIPATHI APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

Date : 05/11/2026

JUDGMENT
1. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the
judgment and order passed in Criminal Revision Application
No. 11 of 2024 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Mehsana, whereby the revision application preferred by the
petitioner came to be dismissed, thereby confirming the order
dated 30th December 2023 passed by the learned Additional
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mehsana, in Criminal Inquiry
No. 2463 of 2023, dismissing the criminal complaint under
Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC),
the petitioner has preferred the present petition under Article
227 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:
Page 1 of 7
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Sat Nov 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 07 14:40:43 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/5042/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240270002026)
“9 a) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to admit this
petition;
b) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to call for the records and
proceedings of Criminal Inquiry Case No. 2463/2023 from
the Courts below and after perusing the same, be pleased to
quash and set aside the judgment and order dated
30.12.2023 passed by Ld. 10th Addl. Session's Judge, & chief
judicial Magistrate, Mehsana, in Criminal Inquiry no. 2463of
2023 & order passed by the Ld. Addl. Session's Judge,
Mehsana in Criminal Revision application no. 11 of 2024
order dt. 30/09/2025 & extent the inquiry for the opponents/
respondents to accused the offence u/s. B.N.S.S. Act, in
accordance with law, in the interest of justice;
c) be pleased to quash and set aside the orders passed by
the Ld. 10th Addl. Session's Judge, & chief Judicial
Magistrate, Mehsana in Criminal Inquiry no. 2463/2023
order dt. 30/12/2023 & order passed by the Ld. Addl. District
& session's judge, Mehsana in Criminal Revision application
no. 11 of 2024 in the interest of justice;
d) Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant such other and
further relief(s), as are deemed fit & proper by this Hon'ble
Court, in the interest of justice;
2. Heard learned advocate Ms. Alka Vaniya appearing
for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor
Ms. Dhwani Tripathi appearing for respondent-State. Though
served, except learned APP, none appeared for and on behalf
of respondents.
3. Upon hearing the learned advocates appearing for
the respective parties, it emerges that the petitioner had filed
a criminal complaint alleging commission of offences
punishable under Sections 503, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian
Penal Code, alleging that the accused persons had threatened
the petitioner and had also used abusive and filthy language
against the petitioner.
Page 2 of 7
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Sat Nov 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 07 14:40:43 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/5042/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240270002026)
4. The learned trial Court initially took cognizance of
the complaint, recorded the verification of the complainant
and passed an order under Section 202 of the CrPC, directing
the concerned Police Inspector to inquire into the allegations
and submit a report. Upon receipt of the inquiry report, the
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, after considering the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mehmood Ul
Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda and Others ,
reported in 2015 Criminal Law Journal 2856, and upon being
of the view that the petitioner had failed to make out a prima
facie case of criminal intimidation or intentional insult with
intent to provoke a breach of the peace, proceeded to dismiss
the complaint under Section 203 of the CrPC.
5. The revisional Court re-examined the matter to
determine whether any error of law or illegality had been
committed by the learned trial Court in dismissing the
complaint. Upon finding no such error warranting
interference, the revisional Court dismissed the revision
application.
6. Having heard learned advocate Ms. Alka Vaniya for
the petitioner, this Court is unable to agree with her
submissions that the Courts below have committed any
serious error warranting exercise of the supervisory
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India.
Page 3 of 7
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Sat Nov 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 07 14:40:43 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/5042/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240270002026)
7. The findings recorded by the learned trial Court,
namely, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, in
paragraphs 4 to 11 of its order, more particularly the relevant
findings therein, and the findings recorded by the revisional
Court in paragraph 12 of its order. The aforesaid paragraphs
reproduced herein below:
“4. In this regard, the police report No. 4 has been
submitted to this court. Whether there is a suitable case to
take action against the prima facie accused? The decision
has to be taken on the basis of the report submitted by the
police and the documents attached thereto and the
Magistrate has to consider it. The question of whether the
accused will be punished at the end of the future judicial
proceedings or not is at present pending. Thus, in the
present case, taking into account the facts of the present
complaint, the documents submitted and the investigation
report submitted by the concerned police station, whether to
issue process against the accused or not? Before discussing
this matter, at this stage, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held in Mohammad UR Rehman v. Kazir Mohammad Tunda
and Others 2015 Criminal Law General 2856 para 23 that,
The steps taken by the Magistrate under section 190(1)(a) of
Cr.P.C.followed by section 204 of Cr.P.C should reflect that
the Magistrate has applied his mind to the facts and the
statements and he is satisfied that there is ground for
proceeding further in the matter by asking the person
against whom the violation of law is alleged, to appear
before the Court. The satisfaction on the ground for
proceeding would mean that the facts alleged in the
complaint would constitute an offence, and when considered
along with the statements recorded, would prima facied,
make the accused answerable before the court. No doubt, no
formal order or a speaking order is required to be passed at
that stage. The Code of Criminal Procedure requires
speaking order to be passed under Section 203 of Cr.P.C.
When the complaint is dismissed and that too the reasons
need to be stated only briefly. In other words, the Magistrate
is not to act is a post office in taking cognizance of each and
every complaint filed before him and issue process as a
matter of course. There must be sufficient indication in the
order passed by the Magistrate that he is satisfied that the
allegations in the complaint constitute an offence and when
considered along with the statements recorded and the
result of inquiry or report of investigation under section 202
Page 4 of 7
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Sat Nov 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 07 14:40:43 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/5042/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240270002026)
of Cr.P.C., if any the accused is answerable before the
criminal Court, there is ground for proceeding against the
accused under section 204 of Cr.P.C. by issuing process for
apperance. Application of mind is best demonstrated by
disclosure of mind on the satisfaction. If there is no such
indication in a case where the Magistrate proceeds under
Sections 190/204 of Cr.P.C. the High Court under section 482
of Cr.P.C.is bound to invoke its inherent power in order to
prevent abuse of the power of the Criminal Court. To be
called to appear before Criminal court matter affecting one's
drgenty, self respect and image in society. Hence the process
of Criminal Court shall not be made a weapon of
harassment. Thus, in this work, the facts of the present
complaint and the documents submitted, the police
investigation report and the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court are taken into consideration Keeping in view
the principle laid down in Section 23, this Court now has to
decide whether the complaint against the present accused
can be made out to be a crime on the basis of facts? And
whether to order process under Section 204 of the IPC
against the accused?
5 . In the said inquiry, the investigating officer recorded the
statements of the complainant, his brother and his tenant in
the police report and also the statements of the accused and
the statements of the neutral witnesses were recorded,
which were taken into consideration and the report made by
the T.K. Officer vide his J.No. 4631/2023, dated 11/10/2023,
by the Police Inspector, Mehsana was submitted. Based on
which, it is seen that the complainant and the accused had a
general fight and in this regard, appropriate legal action has
been taken by the complainant and the accused by filing an
application at the police station and action has also been
taken to obtain bail for both the parties before the Executive
Magistrate, Mehsana, on the basis of the provisions of
Section 107 of Cr.P.C. Thus, taking into consideration the
complaint, verification, documentary evidence submitted, as
well as the report under Section 204 of the CrPC submitted
in this work from No. 4 and the accompanying statements
and records, the complainant has alleged against the present
accused in his complaint under Section there are no
sufficient reasons to take action as per the elements
mentioned in sections 503, 504, 506(2), therefore, the
complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.
12. At this stage, if the verification of the complainant is
taken into account as recorded by the Magistrate, then the
accused has committed any of the above offences It is not
apparent at first sight. In the verification, the complainant
has only stated that the accused has been littering in front of
Page 5 of 7
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Sat Nov 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 07 14:40:43 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/5042/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240270002026)
his house, abusing him, calling and threatening journalists,
harassing him for five or six years, harassing the
complainant and his brother, harassing the complainant's
tenant, even arguing about whether to let the dog out of the
house or not, threatening the tenant to vacate the house. But
in this verification, the complainant has not given any details
about the exact date, place, or what exactly happened. Only
general allegations have been made that the complainant
harasses, abuses, and quarrels. Moreover, the police officer
who did the tapamji has committed an offence under Cr.P.C.
If the report submitted under Section 202 is read, it is also
of the opinion that since 2012, there has been a verbal
altercation between the complainant, his brother and the
accused regarding building a fence in front of the house and
throwing stones on it, draining dirty water in front of the
house and damaging the water tap, chasing away stray dogs
with sticks, placing stones on the road and removing them.
The report of the police investigating officer also does not
mention the exact date and what happened, as no facts have
been revealed about it. The police investigating officer has
recorded the complainant's statement in it, in which he also
said that in 2019, garbage was thrown in front of the house
and six or seven water taps were broken The statement has
been given that the accused had a fight after trying to
convince the accused. Later, on 21/3/2023, the accused
again had a fight, broke the water tap and littered the front
of the house, and argued about why it was placed between
the stones in front of the house. Further, the complainant
has also stated that 'there has been an argument between
our two parties every time and there have been face-to-face
applications every time.' Thus, if the verification of the
complainant before the Magistrate and the statement given
by the complainant before the police investigating officer
during the inquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. are read
in such a way, it does not appear prima facie that the
complainant has committed the offence as per the
allegations made against the accused in the complaint. In
other words, it appears prima facie that the allegations made
in the complaint are without facts and therefore, the
conclusion reached by the Magistrate, taking into account all
these facts, that there are not sufficient grounds to take
action against the accused in the complaint on the basis of
the allegations made under Sections 503, 504, 506 (2) of the
IPC is correct and Accordingly, the order passed to dismiss
the complaint under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. is correct,
lawful, reasonable and the procedure followed is also in
accordance with the rules, as per the order of this Court. It
is believed that and therefore, it does not seem appropriate
in the interest of justice for this Court, as a revisional court,
to interfere with that order. Thus, since there is no fact in
this revision petition, it is without merit and the answer to
Page 6 of 7
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Sat Nov 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 07 14:40:43 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/5042/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240270002026)
issue no. 1 and 2 is negative and it seems appropriate in the
interest of justice to dismiss this revision petition,
consequently, issue no. 3 is given as follows for the final
order.
8. As stated hereinabove, learned advocate appearing
for the petitioner could not point out any material irregularity
or jurisdictional error going to the root of the matter so as to
warrant exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
9. For the foregoing reasons, the petition stands
dismissed. Notice is discharged.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
MANOJ
Page 7 of 7
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Sat Nov 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 07 14:40:43 IST 2026