R/SCR.A/13888/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (FOR CONSENT QUASHING) NO. 13888 of 2025 ========================================================== JAYENDRA JILUBHAI BASIYA & ORS. Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance: KRUNAL S MEHTA(9227) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4 MR TIRTHRAJ PANDYA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 14/10/2025 ORAL ORDER 1. Learned advocate Mr. Dipak Prajapati states that he 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. 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 application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the applicant has prayed to quash and set aside the complaint being FIR C.R. No.11203007250350 of 2025 registered with Bhesan Police Station, Junagadh as well as all the consequential proceedings R/SCR.A/13888/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025 arising therefrom. 5. 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. 6. Learned APP has vehemently opposed the present petition and submitted that the petitioner has criminal antecedents. It is further submitted that the settlement cannot be a ground to allow the present petition, as the petitioner is a habitual offender. Therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. Having heard the learned advocates on both sides and considering the documents on record, it appears as per the complaint dated 03.09.2025, the complainant received a call from accused No.1 Jayendrabhai Basiya, who invited him to Dholwa village on the pretext of a friendly meeting. Upon reaching near Lagaria Pir Road, the complainant found two vehicles, a black Scorpio and a white Swift, both without number plates where accused No.3 – Pratapbhai Dhandhal was present. The complainant was then taken to a place called Padar, where accused Nos.1, 3, and Dhambhai Wala were seated. During the discussion, accused Jayendrabhai asked the complainant not to demand repayment of money lent to accused No.4 – Raviraj @ Ghugha Dhandhal. When the complainant insisted, accused Dhambhai assaulted him with an iron object, causing injuries, R/SCR.A/13888/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025 while Pratapbhai took away his mobile phone. The accused further threatened to kill the complainant and his family, forcibly took him in a Scorpio vehicle to Raviraj’s farm, and again assaulted him. Thereafter, they dropped him near his residence, from where he was taken to Junagadh Government Hospital for treatment. On the basis of these allegations, the complaint was registered as C.R. No.11203007250350 of 2025 at Bhesan Police Station, District Junagadh, for the offences punishable under Sections 309(6), 140(3), 115(2), 118(1), 351(3), and 54 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. 8. Perusing the FIR, it appears that no offence of robbery is made out against the present petitioner. It further appears that the mobile phone and Rs.15,000/- were lost during the scuffle, which have already been recovered. No other offence is found to have been committed by the petitioner. Moreover, the complainant has turned hostile, and there is no other independent witness to support the prosecution case. Hence, there is a very bleak chance of conviction of the petitioner, and merely having past antecedents cannot be a ground for rejecting the present petition. The matter has now been amicably settled between the parties, and the complainant has filed an affidavit stating that he has no objection if the complaint is quashed. Therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings. 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 R/SCR.A/13888/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025 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 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 R/SCR.A/13888/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025 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.11203007250350 of 2025 registered with Bhesan Police Station, Junagadh as well as all consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. 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 15/10/2025 15:08:36