R/SCR.A/7722/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (FOR CONSENT QUASHING) NO. 7722 of 2025 ========================================================== YOGRAJSINH@ RAJA BHAVUBHA CHUDASAMA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance: MR MANGAL V GADHAVI(11922) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR SOAHAM JOSHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 18/06/2025 ORAL ORDER 1. Ms. Divya Bhatt, learned advocate submits that he has instructions to appear on behalf of the respondent No.2 and he further submits that the matter is amicably settled between the parties, in this regard has produced on record an affidavit. 2. The affidavit is taken on record. He is permitted to file his appearance. 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. By way of this application under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nayay Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”), R/SCR.A/7722/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2025 the applicants have prayed to quash and set aside the complaint being FIR C.R. No.11213020250185 of 2025 registered with Jam Kandorana Police Station, Rajkot as well as all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 5. 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 taken / placed on record. 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. 6. Having heard learned advocates on both the sides and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the dispute between the parties is private in nature, as the complaint was lodged alleging that the applicant came to the complainant’s shop, damaged the weighing machine, used filthy language, and issued threats to kill him. However, 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. 7. 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. Page 2 of 4 R/SCR.A/7722/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2025 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), 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 consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nayay Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/482 of the Cr.P.C.. 8. In the aforesaid backdrop, complaint is filed. It is necessary to consider whether the power conferred by the High Court under section 528 of the BNSS/482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is warranted. It is true that the powers under Section 528 of the BNSS/482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of R/SCR.A/7722/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2025 magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage as the Hon’ble Supreme Court has decided in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Ravi Shankar Srivastava, IAS & Anr., reported in AIR 2006 SC 2872. 9. In the result, the application is allowed. The impugned complaint being C.R. No.11213020250185 of 2025 registered with Jam Kandorana Police Station, Rajkot as well as all consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof are hereby quashed and set aside qua the applicants. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ALI Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: ISTAYAK ALI(HC01093), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 20/06/2025 10:47:13