R/SCR.A/9274/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/07/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 9274 of 2025 ========================================================== AJAYSINH CHHATRASINH GADHVI & ORS. Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance: MS ANJALIBEN P PARMAR(11989) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5 MR ROHAN SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 24/07/2025 ORAL ORDER Registry to accept vakalatnama of learned advocate Mr. Rakesh Solanki, who has instructions to appear on behalf of the respondent No.2 – original complainant. [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 Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”), the petitioners have prayed to quash and set aside the FIR being I-CR No.474 of 2007 registered with Navrangpura Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323 R/SCR.A/9274/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/07/2025 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; section 135(1) of the Gujarat Police Act and sections 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “Atrocities Act”) and to quash all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom. [4.0] 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, respondent No.2 has also filed an Affidavit dated 08.07.2025 which is taken on record. In the Affidavit, the original complainant has categorically stated that the dispute with the petitioners 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. [5.0] It is necessary to consider whether the power conferred by the High Court under section 528 of the BNSS is warranted. It is true that the powers under Section 528 of the BNSS 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/9274/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/07/2025 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. [6.0] 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 settlement is arrived at between the parties and even, the complainant has affirmed the fact of his filing the affidavit of settlement and even otherwise, the dispute is private in nature and hence, in the opinion of this Court, the further continuation of criminal proceedings against the present petitioners in relation to the impugned FIR would cause unnecessary harassment to the petitioners. Herein, the offence under the Atrocities Act is invoked only on the basis of insult caused to the caste of the complainant and except that there is no any allegation against the present petitioners. Further, the R/SCR.A/9274/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/07/2025 complainant has stated in his settlement affidavit dated 08.07.2025, which is taken on record, that till date he has not received any amount of compensation under the benevolent scheme and there is no bar to exercise power under Section 482 of the CrPC (section 528 of the BNSS) even in the case registered under the Special Act. 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. (section 528 of the BNSS). [7.0] In the result, petition is allowed qua the present petitioners. The impugned FIR being I-CR No.474 of 2007 registered with Navrangpura Police Station, Ahmedabad as well as all consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof are hereby quashed and set aside qua the petitioners herein. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent only. 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 24/07/2025 18:22:21