R/SCR.A/6120/2025 ORDER DATED: 13/10/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (FOR CONSENT QUASHING) NO. 6120 of 2025 ============================================ VISHNUBHAI BHALABHAI RABARI & ORS. Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ============================================ Appearance: KASHYAP R JANI(8287) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4 MS VRUNDA SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ============================================ CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 13/10/2025 ORAL ORDER 1) Learned Advocate Mr. Mohsin A. Shaikh states that he has instructions to appear on behalf of the original complainant and 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 petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the BNSS (hereinafter referred to as “BNSS”), the petitioners have prayed to quash and set aside the FIR No.11217027250417 of 2025 registered with Radhanpur Police Station, District Patan for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 117(2), 351(3), 296(b) and 54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; under Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act; under R/SCR.A/6120/2025 ORDER DATED: 13/10/2025 Sections 183 and 184 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “Atrocity Act”) and to quash all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 5) The allegations are that on 10.04.2025 the complainant along with witnesses were cultivating the land at that time the accused persons entered the land of the complainant along with 20-25 cows and buffaloes to which the complainant resisted. Being instigated the accused persons started quarrel and hurled abusive language and communal remarks to the complainant. Hence, the complaint was registered. 6) Learned APP has opposed the present petition on the ground that the petitioner nos.1 and 3 are having past antecedents. Initially, the complaint appeared before the police and submitted that he is not ready and willing to settle the dispute but his affidavit was obtained under coercion, hence, the concerned Investigating Officer verified about the past antecedents and facts of coercion. Today, the report is submitted by the Investigating Officer as well as person present before the Court. He has stated about the settlement and admitted the factum of settlement and filed affidavit of Nareshbhai Ramabhai Vankar and Vishnubhai Ramabhai Gandabhai i.e. son of the complainant at Annexure – B (Colly.). As Investigating Officer has pointed out that the complainant having habit of changing his stand regarding settlement. 7) Learned Advocate for the original-complainant and victim has filed affidavit at Annexure – B (Colly.) stating that they have not received any compensation under the benevolent scheme. 8) Learned Advocates for the respective parties submitted that R/SCR.A/6120/2025 ORDER DATED: 13/10/2025 during the pendency of proceedings, the parties have settled the dispute amicably and pursuant to such mutual settlement, the original complainant and victim has also filed Affidavit at Annexure – B (Colly.), which is placed on record. In the Affidavit, the original complainant has categorically stated that 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. 9) Going through the FIR it appears that the FIR is filed at the instance of respondent No.2 which emanates from a private dispute pursuant to which the petitioners abused the caste of the complainant and given threat to the complainant. In this regard, impugned FIR came to be filed. 10) 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 R/SCR.A/6120/2025 ORDER DATED: 13/10/2025 Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Ravi Shankar Srivastava, IAS & Anr., reported in AIR 2006 SC 2872. 11) 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) and State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal reported in (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335 as also considering the fact that impugned FIR is filed in connection with altercation that took place between the accused and the complainant. Now, settlement took place between the parties. Considering the facts merely having past antecedents is not a ground to refuse the quashing more particularly considering the conduct of the complainant. Further, the complainant and victims have filed affidavits at Annexure – B (Colly.), placed on record, undertaking therein that they have not received any compensation from Social Welfare Department from the government under the benevolent scheme and even in future he will not claim any such compensation and there is no bar to exercise power under Section 528 of the BNSS even in the case registered under the Special Act. 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 and hence, in the opinion of this Court, the further continuation of criminal R/SCR.A/6120/2025 ORDER DATED: 13/10/2025 proceedings against the present petitioners in relation to the impugned FIR would cause unnecessary harassment to the petitioners and 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 528 of the BNSS subject to condition that the complainant shall not claim any compensation under the benevolent government scheme. 12) In the result, petition is allowed. The impugned FIR No.11217027250417 of 2025 registered with Radhanpur Police Station, District Patan as well as all consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof are hereby quashed and set aside qua the petitioners herein. If the petitioners are in jail, the jail authority concerned is directed to release the petitioner forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent only. Direct service is permitted. 13) Considering the peculiar facts as pointed out by the Investigating Officer it appears that time and again the complainant changes his version and hence in future if any complaint is registered by the complainant then the authority is directed to verify the complaint under preliminary inquiry and decide the same independently on its own merits and then register the complaint. (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 13/10/2025 18:17:55