Gujarat High Court refuses to quash criminal case against Senior Advocate IH Syed; denies interim relief

The Gujarat High Court on Thursday dismissed a plea by former Assistant Solicitor General and Senior Advocate IH Syed seeking quashing of criminal proceedings against him in an extortion case [IH Syed v State of Gujarat]..Justice Samir J Dave also refused to grant any interim relief to Syed and turned down his prayer to protect him from any coercive steps by the Police. "No case is made out to quash the FIR / criminal proceedings at this stage while exercising the powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)...... Even prayer made with regard to stay the criminal proceedings and/or no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner are also to be rejected," the order said. The High found that it was too early to opine on the petitioner’s innocence since the investigation was not complete.“Merely because the petitioner is an advocate is no ground not to permit the investigating agency into the allegations made against him and to quash the criminal proceedings at the threshold”, the Court stated.The order was passed close on the heels of an Additional Sessions Court denying anticipatory bail to Syed in the matter on May 30. .Syed was apprehending arrest for the offences of offences of extortion, criminal conspiracy, unlawful assembly, rioting, voluntarily causing hurt, intentional insult, criminal intimidation and wrongful confinement.As per the First Information Report (FIR), an earlier FIR registered against the complainant was quashed by the High Court after a settlement between the parties. However, a meeting was held between the accused in this case wherein the complainant was forced to sign certain documents against his will, it was alleged. .Senior Advocate BB Naik, appearing for the petitioner submitted that the criminal proceedings were maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive of seeking vengeance against the petitioner, and with a view to malign his reputation..The public prosecutor, however, informed the court that the investigation was not complete and the petitioner was not participating in the investigation..The single judge, on examining the FIR, found that since the allegations were serious, they needed to investigated. The Court opined that if the allegations were found to be true, it was a serious matter since a designated Senior Advocate was expected to be upright and know the law.“The Investigating Officer must be given some reasonable time to investigate the allegations and to find out the veracity of the truth,” the Court said. .Justice Dave placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure v State of Maharashtra wherein it was held that the power of quashing criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly, and with circumspection. The top court had further stated that the same should be exercised in rarest of the rare cases and it was not justified for the Court in embarking upon an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of the allegations.Therefore, it was found that this was not a fit case to entertain the application for quashing and the petition was dismissed..Senior Advocates BB Naik, Asim Pandya along with Advocate Aniq A Kadri appeared for the petitioner while the respondents were represented by advocates Yash J Patel, Public Prosecutor Mithesh Amin and Additional Public Prosecutor LB Dhabi..[Read Order]