R/CR.MA/16894/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 16894 of 2026 ========================================================== VIKRAM ALIAS PINTU S/O RANCHHODBHAI RABARI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance: MR NK MAJMUDAR(430) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR. ROHAN N MAJMUDAR(14000) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR. YUVRAJ BRAHMBHATT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL Date : 30/07/2026 ORAL ORDER 1. Draft amendment is allowed. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2. Learned advocate Mr. Dhruv Desai on behalf of learned advocate Mr. Bhuvnesh Gahlot states that Mr. Gahlot has instructions to appear on behalf of the de facto complainant and seeks permission to file his Vakalatnama, which is granted. 3. Heard, learned advocates for the respective parties. 4. Rule. The learned advocates for the respective respondents waive service. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and since R/CR.MA/16894/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026 it is jointly stated at bar by the learned advocates for the respective parties that the dispute between the parties has been resolved amicably, this matter is taken up for final disposal forthwith. 6. By this application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the applicants have prayed to quash and set aside the FIR being CR No.I-11216025230265 of 2023, registered with Santej Police Station, Gandhinagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 386, 365, 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act and to quash all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 7. The 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 de facto complainant has also filed an Affidavit, which is taken on record. In the Affidavit, the de facto complainant has categorically stated at para 6 of the affidavit that the entire dispute leading to the registration of the impugned FIR was purely a business dispute involving certain monetary / commercial transactions between the parties, and the said business dispute has now been amicably settled and resolved between the complainant and the applicant. He further stated that he has no objection if the criminal proceedings are quashed and set aside since there is no surviving grievance between R/CR.MA/16894/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026 them. 8. The de facto complainant is present before the Court today. When questioned, the complainant has unequivocally stated that he has entered into compromise with the accused and they have amicably settled the dispute and that, he has no objection to quash the FIR that is registered against the applicant. 9. It is apt here to consider whether the power conferred by the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) is warranted. It is true that the powers under Section 528 of BNSS 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 held by the Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of R/CR.MA/16894/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026 Investigation v. Ravi Shankar Srivastava, IAS & Anr., reported in AIR 2006 SC 2872. 10. Having heard learned advocates on both the sides and considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the principles 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) Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in 2014 (2) Crime 67 (SC) as also considering the fact that the dispute between the parties is resolved amicably and complainant has no objection if the FIR is quashed, in the opinion of this Court, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the present applicant would be an exercise in futility and abuse of process of law. 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. 11. In fine, the application is allowed. The impugned FIR, as referred to herein above, as well as all consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof, are hereby quashed and set aside qua the applicant herein. Page 4 of 5 R/CR.MA/16894/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026 12. If the applicant is in jail, the jail authority concerned is directed to release the applicant forthwith, if not required in any other case. 13. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted. (P. M. RAVAL, J) NITIN MAKWANA Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: NITIN INDRAVADAN MAKWANA(HCW0110), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE ONE, at High Court of Gujarat on 30/07/2026 18:00:28