R/SCR.A/10001/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/09/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 10001 of 2025 ========================================================== MUNAF AZIZ MEMON Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance: MR KISHAN N BRAHMBHATT(11382) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR NILESH S BRAHMBHATT(11421) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR MANAN MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 25/09/2025 ORAL ORDER 1. Learned advocate Ms. Trishla Sheth states that she 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. 3. RULE. Learned advocates waive service of notice of rule on behalf of the respective respondents. 4. 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. 5. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the FIR being C.R.No. 11214070250315 of 2025 registered at Bardoli Rural Police Station, Surat, for the offence under Sections 386, 504, 506(2) R/SCR.A/10001/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/09/2025 and 294(b) of IPC and Sections 5, 33, 40 and 42 of the Gujarat Money Lenders Act as well as other consequential proceedings arising therefrom.as well as all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. Having heard the learned advocates on both sides and considering the documents on record, it appears that applicant had lent him 4,00,000/- (four lakh) at interest. The accused ₹ allegedly threatened the complainant, fraudulently got the sale deed of the property executed in his favor, and obtained a loan of 13,68,000/- (thirteen lakh sixty-eight thousand) on the ₹ property, of which 10,00,000/- (ten lakh) was recovered. The ₹ R/SCR.A/10001/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/09/2025 accused continues to repeatedly visit the complainant’s house, pressuring him to repay the interest amount, harassing the complainant, verbally abusing him, and threatening his life. Consequently, the complainant informed his close relatives, who advised him to file a formal complaint. Accordingly, the complainant has legally lodged this complaint against the accused. The petitioner has no past antecedent. The dispute has now been amicably resolved between the parties, and in this regard, the complainant has filed an affidavit on record stating that he has no objection if the complaint is quashed. Considering the nature of the allegations, no purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter. On the contrary, the complainant has expressly consented to the quashing of the complaint. 9. 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 R/SCR.A/10001/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/09/2025 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. 10. 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. 11. In the result, the application is allowed. The impugned complaint being C.R.No. 11214070250315 of 2025 registered at Bardoli Rural Police Station, Surat as well as all R/SCR.A/10001/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/09/2025 consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof are hereby quashed. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted. If the applicant is in jail, the jail authority concerned is directed to release the applicant forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case. (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 25/09/2025 18:03:43