R/SCR.A/9976/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/10/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 9976 of 2025 ============================================ BHAVESHBHAI @ LALABHAI RAMBHAI MAGANBHAI PATEL & ANR. Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ============================================ Appearance: MR. ASHOK A PUROHIT(6267) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2 MS RASHMI R JOHRI(5560) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR MANAN MAHETA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ============================================ CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 16/10/2025 ORAL ORDER Learned Advocate Ms. Rashmi Johri states that she has instructions to appear on behalf of the original complainant and seeks permission to file her Vakalatnama. The Registry is directed to accept the vakalatnama. 1) RULE. Learned advocates waive service of notice of rule on behalf of the respective respondents. 2) 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) By way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the BNSS (hereinafter referred to as “BNSS”), the petitioners have prayed R/SCR.A/9976/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/10/2025 to quash and set aside the FIR No.11216005240716 of 2024 registered with Dehgam Police Station, District : Gandhinagar for the offences punishable under Sections 352 and 54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and under Sections 3(1) (r) and 3(1)(s) 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. 4) Learned Advocate for the original-complainant has filed undertaking of the complainant dated 16.10.2025 stating that he has received Rs.75,000/- from the ST/SC Cell or from Government for filing the impugned complaint and he is ready and willing to return the said amount of Rs.75,000/- before the concern authority. 5) 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 Affidavit dated 16.10.2025, which is taken on record. In the Affidavit, the original complainant has categorically stated that the 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. 6) 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. Page 2 of 5 R/SCR.A/9976/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/10/2025 7) 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. 8) 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 R/SCR.A/9976/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/10/2025 filed in connection with altercation that took place between the accused and the complainant in connection of property situated in Dehgam Village, and for snatching the possession of the said premises alleged incident took place and the accused hurled abusive language. Considering the nature of the dispute which is private in nature and no any injury was caused to the parties and now, settlement took place between the parties. Further, the complainant has filed an undertaking dated 16.10.2025, which is taken on record, undertaking therein that he is ready and willing to return/deposit the amount of Rs.75,000/- to the concerned authority 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 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. 9) In the result, petition is allowed. The impugned FIR being FIR No.11216005240716 of 2024 registered with Dehgam Police Station, District : Gandhinagar as well as all consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof are R/SCR.A/9976/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/10/2025 hereby quashed and set aside qua the petitioners herein subject to return the amount of Rs.75,000/- to the concerned authority by the respondent no.2 - complainant. 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. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ANKIT JANSARI 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 16/10/2025 17:54:25