R/SCR.A/10330/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/07/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (FOR CONSENT QUASHING) NO. 10330 of 2025 ========================================================== DEV HIRENBHAI PATEL Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance: MR ARJUNSINGH B CHAUHAN(11510) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 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. Turab H. Govani, who has instructions to appear for 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 Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as “BNSS”), the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the FIR being CR No.11210012250647 of 2025 registered with R/SCR.A/10330/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/07/2025 Katargam Police Station, Surat City for the offences punishable under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) 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 which is produced at Annexure-A to the petition. In the Affidavit, the original complainant has categorically stated that the dispute with the petitioner 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 (section 482 of the CrPC) is warranted. It is true that the powers under Section 528 of the BNSS (section 482 of the CrPC) 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 R/SCR.A/10330/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/07/2025 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 appeared before this Court through virtual mode and affirmed the fact of his filing the affidavit of settlement in the opinion of this Court and therefore, further continuation of criminal proceedings against the present petitioner in relation to the impugned FIR would cause unnecessary harassment to the petitioner. 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 R/SCR.A/10330/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/07/2025 aside the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof under Section 528 of the BNSS (section 482 of CrPC). So far as submission of learned APP that petitioner is having two past antecedents is concerned, one is for the offence under Section 107 of the BNS and another is of similar nature which is at investigation stage. [7.0] In the result, petition is allowed. The impugned FIR being CR No.11210012250647 of 2025 registered with Katargam Police Station, Surat City as well as all consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof are hereby quashed and set aside qua the petitioner 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 18:23:59