R/SCR.A/6167/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (FOR CONSENT QUASHING) NO. 6167 of 2025 ========================================= YATINKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI PATEL & ANR. Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ========================================= Appearance: MR JASPALSINH R JADEJA(11226) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2 APP MR KRUTIK PARIKH for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================= CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 15/09/2025 ORAL ORDER 1. Ms. Mahima H. Brahmbhatt, learned advocate submits that she has instructions to appear on behalf of the respondent no.2 and she further submits that the matter is amicably settled between the parties, in this regard has produced on record an affidavit. 2. Registry is directed to accept the Vakalatnama of the learned advocate, Ms. Mahima H. Brahmbhatt appearing for respondent no.2. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and since it is jointly stated at the Bar by learned advocates on both the sides that the dispute between the parties has been resolved amicably, this matter is taken up for final disposal forthwith. 4. Rule. Learned advocates waive service of Rule for the respective respondents. 5. By way of this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the R/SCR.A/6167/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2025 Constitution of India and section 528 of the BNSS, the applicants have prayed to quash and set aside the FIR being CR No. 11216009240794 of 2024 registered at Mansa City Police Station, District Gandhinagar for the offences under sections 140(2), 189(1), 189(4), 115(2) and 351(3) of the BNS as well as under section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 6. Learned advocates for the respective parties submitted that during the pendency of proceedings, the parties have settled the dispute amicably and pursuant to such mutual settlement, the original complainant has also filed an Affidavit, which is at Annexure C in the application. In the Affidavit, the original complainant has categorically stated that the dispute with the applicant/s has been resolved amicably and that he has no objection, if the present proceedings are quashed and set aside since there is no surviving grievance between them. 7. Learned APP has opposed the present application on the ground that an earlier application seeking consent was withdrawn, and liberty was granted only to initiate appropriate proceedings before the trial Court. Since no specific liberty was granted to file the present application, the same is not maintainable. It is further submitted by the Learned APP that Accused No. 4 has past antecedents of a similar nature. Prima facie, sufficient material has been collected, and the offence is against the State. Hence, it is prayed that the present application be dismissed. 8. Perusing the record, it appears that the role attributed to the present Applicant No. 1 is that he was not returning the money to the tune of Rs. 4,00,000/- which Respondent No. 2 had given six R/SCR.A/6167/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2025 months prior, and on repeated reminders, the Applicant got furious and called Respondent No. 2 to Gandhinagar highway, where he unlawfully kidnapped and assaulted him, and later dropped him at Gandhinagar highway. In this regard, a complaint came to be filed. The accused and the complainant happen to be relatives, and in connection with the money transaction, the alleged incident took place. The wife of the complainant happens to be the real sister of Applicant No. 2. Now the matter is amicably settled between the parties and in this regard, the complainant has filed an affidavit stating that he has no objection if the complaint is quashed. Therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served to proceed with the matter. 9. In view of the above, as the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of (i) Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, (ii) Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582, (iii) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 31, (iv) Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Ors., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 190 and (v) Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in 2014 (2) Crime 67 (SC), as well as considering the fact that amicable settlement has been arrived at between the parties which fact has been affirmed by the respondent no. 2, who has appeared in person before the Court, in the opinion of this Court, the further continuation of criminal proceedings against the applicant/s in relation to the impugned FIR would cause unnecessary harassment to the applicant/s. Further, the continuance of trial pursuant to the mutual settlement arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise. Hence, to secure the ends of justice, it would be appropriate to quash and set aside the impugned FIR and all R/SCR.A/6167/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2025 consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nayay Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/482 of the Cr.P.C.. 10. In the result, the application is allowed. The impugned FIR being CR No. 11216009240794 of 2024 registered at Mansa City Police Station, District Gandhinagar as well as all consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof are hereby quashed and set aside qua the applicants. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent only. Direct service is permitted. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) Kaushal Rathod Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: KAUSHAL MAHESHBHAI RATHOD(HCD0078), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE TWO CLASS TWO, at High Court of Gujarat on 16/09/2025 10:36:35