R/SCR.A/10575/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (FOR CONSENT QUASHING) NO. 10575 of 2025 ============================================ GIRISH VIRBHADRAPPA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ============================================ Appearance: KURVEN K DESAI(7786) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR KANABHAI M VADHIYA(12543) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR KRUTIK PARIKH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ============================================ CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 16/09/2025 ORAL ORDER [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 226 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.11191036240173 of 2024 registered with Navrangpura Police Station, Ahmedabad City for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and to quash all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom. Page 1 of 5 R/SCR.A/10575/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025 [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, Mr. Devendra Patel, Authorized Signatory of the respondent No.2 – Aditya Chokshi Family Trust has also filed an Affidavit dated 16.09.2025 which is taken on record. 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 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 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. [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 R/SCR.A/10575/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025 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 wherein in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6, it is stated as under: “4. That according to the said settlement arrived at between the present petitioner and Aditya Chokshi Family Trust. The present petitioner and the deponent in his capacity as the Authorized Signatory of Aditya Chokshi Family Trust herein have executed the consent terms. 5. It is stated and submitted that Ms. Shyamala Shekhar, cumulatively on behalf of the Petitioner and the other accused, namely, Venkatraman Swaminathan (the petitioner in Special Criminal Application No.10617/2025), in lieu of the settlement between the petitioner and Mr. Venkatraman Swaminathan with the complainant, has transferred a sum of Rs.2,30,000/-, in total, in the IndusInd Bank current account number 258980002424 of M/s Aditya Chokshi Family Trust, as the settlement amount. The deponent herein, as the Authorized Signatory of Aditya Chokshi Family Trust, confirms the receipt of the said amount of Rs.2,30,00,000/- in the following manner as under: Sr. no. Date of transfer Mode of Transfer Amount transferred in the bank account of M/s Aditya Chokshi Family Trust (In Rs) 1 18/03/2025 Demand Draft no. 021141 25,00,000/- 2 20/03/2025 Demand Draft 25,00,000/- 3 15/04/2025 RTGS 1,00,00,000/- 4 15/04/2025 RTGS 80,00,000/- Total: 2,30,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crore Thirty Lakh Only/-) R/SCR.A/10575/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025 6. That in view of the said settlement arrived at between the present petitioner and Aditya Chokshi Family Trust, the deponent being the Authorized Signatory of Aditya Chokshi Family Trust, herein states that Aditya Chokshi Family Trust has no objection if the petition of the present petitioner is allowed, and the FIR no.11191036240173/2024 registered with Navrangpura Police Station, which has thereafter culminated into chargesheet 5/2025 dated 31.01.2025 and 24/2025 dated 04.04.2025 is quashed by this Hon’ble Court, qua the present petitioner.” In view of the aforesaid settlement, in the opinion of this Court, the 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 aside the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.. [7.0] Insofar as offence under Section 420 of the IPC is concerned, it is appropriate to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rekha Jain vs. The State of Karnataka & Anr. reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 468, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, to make out a case against a person for the offence under Section 420 of IPC, there must be a dishonest inducement to deceive a person to deliver any property to any other person. Further, in the case of Sarabjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in (2023)5 SCC 360 has held in paragraph No.13 as follows: “13. A breach of contract does not give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction. Merely on the allegation of failure to keep up promise will not be enough to initiate criminal proceedings. From the facts available on record, it is evident that the respondent No.2 had improved his case ever since the first complaint was filed in which there were no allegations against the appellant rather it was only against the property dealers which was in subsequent R/SCR.A/10575/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025 complaints that the name of the appellant was mentioned. On the first complaint, the only request was for return of the amount paid by the respondent No.2. When the offence was made out on the basis of the first complaint, the second complaint was filed with improved version making allegations against the appellant as well which was not there in the earlier complaint. The entire idea seems to be to convert a civil dispute into criminal and put pressure on the appellant for return of the amount allegedly paid. The criminal Courts are not meant to be used for settling scores or pressurise parties to settle civil disputes. Wherever ingredients of criminal offences are made out, criminal courts have to take cognizance. The complaint in question on the basis of which F.I.R. was registered was filed nearly three years after the last date fixed for registration of the sale deed. Allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of the Court.” It is also apposite to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in 2024 INSC 626 and Rikhab Birani & Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in 2025 INSC 512. [8.0] In the result, petition is allowed. The impugned FIR being CR No.11191036240173 of 2024 registered with Navrangpura Police Station, Ahmedabad 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) ANKIT Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE I, at High Court of Gujarat on 16/09/2025 18:25:57