Absence of Accused and Non-Cooperation with Trial Precludes Discretionary Relief of Quashing FIR Under Section 482 CrPC.

The petitioner, Bhavik Shaileshbhai Shah, sought to quash an FIR registered at Nikol Police Station, Ahmedabad, for offences under Sections 143, 146, 147, 148, 323, 324, and 506(2) of the IPC and Section 135(a) of the G.P. Act

The petitioner claimed he was a "whistleblower" being targeted for exposing illegal construction by the informant

Initially, the Investigating Agency filed a ‘B’ Summary Report (indicating no evidence), which the trial court rejected

During the pendency of this petition, the trial court reported that charge was framed on February 9, 2024; however, the petitioner subsequently fled, failed to record his plea, and became the subject of an unexecuted non-bailable warrant

1. Whether the FIR and criminal proceedings should be quashed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. on the grounds of being a false and retaliatory prosecution

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to discretionary relief when he is non-compliant with trial court proceedings and the execution of warrants

The court exercised its inherent powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., which allows for the quashing of proceedings to prevent the abuse of the process of law

In determining whether a prima facie case existed, the court relied on the evidentiary value of witness statements recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., which carry significant weight at the stage of considering quashing petitions

The court rejected the petitioner’s contention that the case lacked substance. It noted that while the police initially filed a ‘B’ Summary, the trial court exercised its local jurisdiction to reject it and order further investigation

Crucially, the court perused statements from witnesses Hemantsur Prajapati and Ramesh Chan Prajapati recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., who both corroborated the incident of the petitioner abusing and threatening the informant

Furthermore, the court viewed the petitioner’s conduct—specifically fleeing the court after charges were framed and evading a non-bailable warrant—as a significant barrier to granting discretionary relief

The court concluded that since a strong prima facie case was established through recorded statements, there was no justification for quashing the FIR

The High Court of Gujarat dismissed the petition