R/SCR.A/8863/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/07/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (FOR CONSENT QUASHING) NO. 8863 of 2025 ========================================================== NIRMALBHAI KANUBHAI RABARI & ORS. Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance: MR JAY M THAKKAR(6677) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,10,11,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 MR BHAVIK R SAMANI(8339) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 17/07/2025 ORAL ORDER At the outset, learned advocate for the petitionerss does not press the present petition qua petitioners Nos.4 and 6 at this stage. Hence, present petition is disposed of as not pressed qua petitioners No.4 namely Sureshbhai Danabhai Bharwad and petitioners No.6 namely Kanu @ Bachhubhai Naranbhai Bharwad. [1.0] RULE. Learned advocates waive service of note of rule on behalf of the respective respondents. [2.0] 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. [3.0] By way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed to quash and set aside the FIR being CR No.11215020250217 of 2025 registered with Petlad Rural Police Station, Anand for the offences punishable R/SCR.A/8863/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/07/2025 under Sections 115, 189(2), 191(2), 308(4), 127(2), 352 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) and to quash all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom. [4.0] The case of prosecution in brief are that, the accused – Nirmal Rabari and Jayeshbhai Rabari came to the house of the complainant and lured the complainant by saying to leave his current business and join them and by joining he would earn lakhs every month. It is further the case that said Nirmal Rabari stated that his friend Neel Patel who is originally resident of of Vidyanagar is picking up the parcels from the America and complainant will have to work with them and then from that the complainant would be given the commission. It is further alleged that Akshay Patel who is resident of New Jersey, was asked to pick-up the parcel of gold. However, as soon as the parcel was collected, Akshay Patel switched off his mobile phone. Subsequently, the complainant was threatened and pressurized to pay an amount of Rs.93 lakh and thereby the accused persons i.e. the accused persons namely (1) Neel Patel, (2) Suresh Bharwad, (3) Vishal Bharwad, (4) Kanu Bamba @ Bachhubhai, (5) Bharat Bharwad, (6) Devang Rabari, (7) Bhagirath Bharwad, (8) Pravin Bharwad, (9) Dinesh Bharwad and (10) Prakash Bharwad hatched conspiracy against the complainant and deceived him and in this regard the FIR is registered. [5.0] Learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are falsely enroped in the offence and 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 dated 20.06.2025. In the Affidavit, the original complainant has categorically stated that the dispute with the petitioners has been resolved amicably and that he R/SCR.A/8863/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/07/2025 has no objection, if the present proceedings are quashed and set aside since there is no surviving grievance between them. [6.0] Learned advocate for the original complainant has submitted that the dispute between the parties is amicably settled and the complainant has no objection if the FIR is quashed and therefore, has requested to pass appropriate order. [7.0] Learned APP has vehemently opposed the present consent quashing petition on the ground that present accused are involved in serious scame under the garb of illegal transaction, havala and digital arrest and they have lured the people and many victims are there and investigation is at nascant stage and the accused have extorted money and all accused are having common goal and therefore, if the impugned proceedings are quashed and set aside at the nascant stage of investigation then it would adversely affect the case of prosecution. Further, she has submitted that the petitioner Nos.4 and 6 are having past antecedents. [8.0] It is necessary to consider whether the power conferred by the High Court under section 482 of the CrPC is warranted. It is true that the powers under Section 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 R/SCR.A/8863/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/07/2025 of 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. [9.0] I have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments canvassed on behalf of the respective parties. Perusing the allegations in the complaint it appears that in the background of alleged transaction of one gold parcel worth of Rs.93 lakh, to extort money, the present petitioners – accused have illegally detained and forcefully abducted the complainant and tried to recover the said money and in this regard the offence is registered. Hence, impugned offence is registered in connection of recovery of Rs.93 lakh however, there is no any allegation in the said FIR qua involvement of the present petitioners in such illegal transaction of gold parcel or any other transaction that took place outside the country. It is needless to say that if any havala transaction or any muel’s account or any transaction or allegations of digital arrest are found during the investigation against the accused persons then same is distinct offence and prosecution may investigate the offence and file appropriate proceeding based on the material including the cyber offences, if any material is collected but based on the said apprehension or based on said anticipation, registration of any other offence or involvement of accused in any other offence, arguments of learned APP cannot be accepted. Considering the limited allegations leveled in the present complaint and considering the fact that complainant himself has disowned his version, there is bleak and R/SCR.A/8863/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/07/2025 remote chance of conviction and therefore, no purpose would be served to continue such proceedings. Hence, present petition on the ground of amicable settlement between the parties deserves consideration. [10.0] Having heard learned advocates on both the sides and considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also 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 also considering the fact that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal reported in (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335 wherein it has been observed and held as under, petition deserves consideration: “(5) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; (6) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party; (7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” Further, now as the dispute is amicably settled, there is no chance of breach of public tranquility and hence, in the opinion of this R/SCR.A/8863/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/07/2025 Court, the further continuation of criminal proceedings against the present petitioners in relation to the impugned FIR would cause unnecessary harassment to the petitioners. Further, even the complainant has affirmed the fact of settlement and filing of affidavit by him. 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. [11.0] In the result, present petition is allowed qua petitioner Nos.1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 only. The impugned FIR being CR No.11215020250217 of 2025 registered with Petlad Rural Police Station, Anand as well as all consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof are hereby quashed and set aside qua petitioner Nos.1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 only. If the petitioner Nos.1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 only are in jail, the jail authority concerned is directed to release them forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case. Rule is made absolute qua petitioner Nos.1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 only and Rule is discharged qua petitioner Nos.4 and 6. However, it is clarified that if any distinct offence is registered against the petitioners then this order would not come into play. Direct service is permitted. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.) Ajay Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: AJAY CHANDRAN MENON(HC00939), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 17/07/2025 18:48:22