R/SCR.A/9053/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 9053 of 2025 ========================================================== SATISHBHAI RUGNATHBHAI JETPARIYA(PATEL) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance: MR P B KHAMBHOLJA(5730) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 01/07/2025 ORAL ORDER 1. Learned advocate Mr. R.K. Majmudar states that he has instructions to appear on behalf of the original complainant and thereby, seeks permission to file his Vakalatnama, which is granted. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. 2. RULE. Learned advocates waive service of notice of rule on behalf of the respective respondents. 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 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the applicant has prayed to quash and set aside the complaint being FIR C.R. No.11189005251156 of 2025 registered with Morbi Taluka Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 64(1) of the R/SCR.A/9053/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025 BNS and 3(1)(w)(i)4, 3(2)(v)m, etc. of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as well as all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 5. Learned advocate for the applicants submits that the applicants have nothing to do with the offence and they are falsely implicated in the offence. However, the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, and they have no objection if the complaint is quashed. Therefore, the application may be allowed. 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 taken / placed on record. In the Affidavit, the original complainant have categorically stated that the dispute with the applicant 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. Having heard the learned advocates on both sides and considering the documents on record, it appears Approximately a year ago, while working at XARO Factory on Pipli Road, the complainant came into contact with the owner, applicant, and over time, they developed a relationship, frequently communicating via Instagram and WhatsApp. The applicant informed the complainant that he intended to divorce his wife and marry her, due to which she left her job to keep their affair R/SCR.A/9053/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025 hidden while remaining in contact with him. On 26/05/2025, upon his request, the complainant left her house without informing anyone, and applicant picked her up from Swaminarayan Temple, Makansar, and took her to Morbi, asking her to wait while he returned home. Later that evening, he took her to a godown at Village Lalpar, where he attempted to establish physical relations despite her resistance, stating they would marry regardless of her Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe status, and proceeded without her consent. Thereafter the present impugned compliant. 8. In view of the above, it is submitted that although the present offence is against the State and is non-compoundable, considering the allegations on record, it is evident that the complainant and the accused-applicant were in a consensual relationship. If consent was present, the offence of rape is not made out, and in such circumstances, the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. Therefore, in the interest of justice, continuing such proceedings would amount to a sheer waste of the Court’s valuable time in the absence of any incriminating material. Furthermore, the dispute has now been amicably resolved between the parties, and in this regard, the complainant has filed an affidavit and undertaking on record stating that she has no objection if the complaint is quashed, and has further undertaken that in the future, she shall not claim any compensation as prescribed under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in connection with the said FIR. Considering the nature of the allegations, no purpose would be served in proceeding with the R/SCR.A/9053/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025 matter, particularly in the absence of any material on record revealing or suggesting the involvement of the accused in the alleged offence. On the contrary, the complainant has expressly consented to the quashing of the complaint. 9. In this regard this Court deems it apposite to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Naim Ahmed vs. State of NCT of Delhi, reported in (2023) 15 SCC 385 and Biswajyoti Chatterjee V. State Of West Bengal, reported in 2025 INSC 458. 10. In view of 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), 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 482 of the Cr.P.C./ 528 of BNSS. Page 4 of 6 R/SCR.A/9053/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025 11. In the aforesaid backdrop, complaint is filed. It is necessary to consider whether the power conferred by the High Court under section 528 of BNSS/482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is warranted. It is true that the powers under Section 528 of BNSS/482 Cr.P.C 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 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. 12. In the result, the application is allowed. The impugned complaint being C.R. No.11189005251156 of 2025 registered with Morbi Taluka Police Station as well as all consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof are hereby quashed and set aside qua the applicant only herein. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted. If the applicant is in jail, the jail authority concerned is directed to release the applicant R/SCR.A/9053/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025 forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case. 13. However, it is clarified that since the complainant has undertaken not to claim any compensation under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in connection with the said FIR, and as the matter has been settled between the parties, the complainant is not entitled to receive any compensation under the said Act in connection with the FIR. (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 02/07/2025 18:15:15