Gujarat High Court
Santoki Shantanu Vitthalbhai vs State Of Gujarat on 16 July, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/15603/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 15603 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
SANTOKI SHANTANU VITTHALBHAI & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
M S PADALIYA(7406) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
ROHAN SHAH APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
Date : 16/07/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By way of the present petition filed under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners are prayed
to quash and set aside the FIR being CR No.
11215035200485/2020 registered with the Umreth Police Station,
District : Anand on 13.05.2020 for the offences punishable under
Sections 269,308,188 and 417 of the IPC read with Section 51(b)
pf the Disaster Management Act.
2. Learned Advocate Mr. M.S. Padaliya for the applicants
would submit that:
Page 1 of 6
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 17 02:42:44 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/15603/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2026
undefined
2.1 The petitioners are carrying on the businesses of SS Glass
and Steel under the names “Manas Steel” and “Balkrushna
Stamping,” respectively, in Rajkot District.
2.2 Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, a countrywide lockdown was
imposed by the Government in March 2020.
2.3 Since work had come to a standstill during the COVID-19
period, the petitioners were not visiting their respective factory
premises regularly. However, they later came to know from other
factory owners that, on 13.05.2020, the workers employed in
their factories, along with workers from nearby areas, were being
transported from their workplaces to their native places. Before
the petitioners could convince them not to migrate, they had
already left the city.
2.4 The petitioners were not aware of the workers being
transported in the tanker, as alleged in the FIR. Thus, the
migration of the workers took place without the petitioners’
knowledge or assistance.
2.5 Upon reading the entire charge-sheet, it is evident that the
statements of the persons found in the Eicher container are
stereotyped in nature and do not disclose any involvement of the
present petitioners. The statements merely indicate that the
driver of the Eicher container, Amrutlal Yadav, was from Uttar
Pradesh and that the owner of the Eicher container and certain
factory owners had decided to send the labourers to Uttar
Pradesh in the said vehicle. However, there is not a single iota of
evidence, including any call records, to establish that the presentPage 2 of 6
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 17 02:42:44 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/15603/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2026
undefined
petitioners were in contact with either the owner or the driver of
the Eicher container. It is, therefore, argued that no case is made
out against the petitioners. It is further submitted that, since
Section 188 of the IPC is attracted, the bar under Section 195
would operate, and no court can take cognizance except upon a
written complaint made by the competent public servant before
the competent court. As the present proceedings arise out of an
FIR and not a complaint as defined under Section 2(d) of the
CrPC, no valid cognizance could have been taken. It is, therefore,
prayed that the present application be allowed.
3. Per contra, the learned APP submitted that there are
statements of nearly 104 persons who were travelling in an
Eicher container without any valid permit issued by the
competent authority for travel to Uttar Pradesh. The statements
of those persons reveal that the said 104 persons were travelling
in the Eicher container at the behest of the petitioners and the
owners of the container. It is, therefore, submitted that a prima
facie case is made out, and the learned APP has accordingly
prayed for rejection of the present petition.
4. Heard Learned Advocates for the respective parties.
4.1 At the outset, the principles laid down in the case of
Devendrakumar Vs. State of Delhi (NCT)and others reported in
2025 INSC 1009 would be relevant. The concluding part would
thus, read as under:-
“E. CONCLUSION
59. We may summarize our final conclusion as under:
(i) Section 195(1)(a)(i) of the Cr.P.C. bars the court from taking
Page 3 of 6
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 17 02:42:44 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/15603/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2026
undefined
cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188
respectively of the I.P.C., unless there is a written complaint by
the public servant concerned or his administrative superior, for
voluntarily obstructing the public servant from discharge of his
public functions. Without a complaint from the said persons, the
court would lack competence to take cognizance in certain types
of offences enumerated therein.
(ii) If in truth and substance, an offence falls in the category of
Section 195(1)(a)(i), it is not open to the court to undertake the
exercise of splitting them up and proceeding further against the
accused for the other distinct offences disclosed in the same set
of facts. However, it also cannot be laid down as a straitjacket
formula that the Court, under all circumstances, cannot
undertake the exercise of splitting up. It would depend upon the
facts of each case, the nature of allegations and the materials on
record.
(iii) Severance of distinct offences is not permissible when it
would effectively circumvent the protection afforded by Section
195(1)(a)(i) of the Cr.P.C., which requires a complaint by a public
servant for certain offences against public justice. This means
that if the core of the offence falls under the purview of Section
195(1)(a)(i), it cannot be prosecuted by simply filing a general
complaint for a different, but related, offence. The focus should
be on whether the facts, in substance, constitute an offence
requiring a public servant’s complaint.
(iv) In the aforesaid context, the courts must apply twin tests.
First, the courts must ascertain having regard to the nature of
the allegations made in the complaint/FIR and other materials on
record whether the other distinct offences not covered by Section
195(1)(a)(i) have been invoked only with a view to evade the
mandatory bar of Section 195 of the I.P.C. and secondly, whether
the facts primarily and essentially disclose an offence for which a
complaint of the court or a public servant is required.
(v) Where an accused is alleged to have committed some
offences which are separate and distinct from those contained in
Section 195, Section 195 will affect only the offences mentioned
therein. However, the courts should ascertain whether such
offences form an integral part and are so intrinsically connected
so as to amount to offences committed as a part of the same
transaction, in which case the other offences also would fall
within the ambit of Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. This would all
Page 4 of 6
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 17 02:42:44 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/15603/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2026
undefined
depend on the facts of each case.
(vi) Sections 195(1)(b)(i)(ii) & (iii) and 340 of the Cr.P.C.
respectively do not control or circumscribe the power of the
police to investigate, under the Criminal Procedure Code. Once
investigation is completed then the embargo in Section 195
would come into play and the Court would not be competent to
take cognizance. However, that Court could then file a complaint
for the offence on the basis of the FIR and the material collected
during investigation, provided the procedure laid down in Section
340 of the Cr.P.C. is followed.”
4.2 If the facts of the present case are tested on the aforesaid
principles, the offences squarely fall within the ambit of Section
195(1)(a)(i), inasmuch as it is alleged that, during the lockdown
and in breach of the order duly promulgated by a public servant,
and at the instance of the present petitioners, 18 workers
employed by the present petitioners were travelling to Uttar
Pradesh. It is, therefore, alleged that the petitioners committed
offences punishable under Sections 269, 308, 188 and 417 of the
IPC, read with Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management Act.
These offences cannot be split, and consequently, the
proceedings qua the remaining distinct offences arising out of the
same set of facts cannot be continued.
4.3 Since it would effectively circumvent the protection afforded
by Section 195(1)(a)(i) of the CrPC, which requires a complaint to
be lodged by the public servant for the offences enumerated
therein, such a course is impermissible. Thus, when the core
offence falls within the ambit of the bar under Section 195 of the
CrPC, it is not permissible for the prosecution to file a general
complaint for different but related offences arising out of the said
offence. If, in substance, the allegations constitute an offence
Page 5 of 6
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 17 02:42:44 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/15603/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2026
undefined
requiring a complaint by a public servant, as contemplated under
Section 2(d) of the CrPC, then, applying the principles laid down
hereinabove, it cannot be said that the other distinct offences are
outside the ambit of the bar under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of the
CrPC, as they are so intricately connected that they form part of
the same transaction.
5. In view of the above, the captioned petition stands allowed.
The impugned FIR being CR No. 11215035200485/2020
registered with the Umreth Police Station, District: Anand on
13.05.2020 for the offences punishable under Sections
269,308,188 and 417 of the IPC read with Section 51(b) pf the
Disaster Management Act, along with all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom qua the present petitioners, stands
quashed and set aside.
6. Rule is made absolute for the aforesaid extent.
(P. M. RAVAL, J)
MMP
Page 6 of 6
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 17 02:42:44 IST 2026
