IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONSENT QUASHING) NO. 2703 of 2026 ========================================================== MORARIDAS KARSHANDAS MAKWANA & ORS. Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance: MR. MAHEK B. RAVAL(17804) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 MR. MANAN MAHETA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL K. VYAS Date : 18/02/2026 ORAL ORDER 1. Learned advocate Mr. Fenil H. Bathiya appears and submits that he has instructions to appear on behalf of the respondent no.2 – original complainant. He is permitted to le his appearance. Registry shall accept his vakalatnama as and when the same is led. 2. By way of preferring the present application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the applicants-accused seek to invoke the inherent powers of this Court, praying to quash and set-aside the First Information Report No. 11202056240245 of 2024 registered with the Kalavad Rural Police Station, District Jamnagar, for the o4ences punishable under Sections 365, 323, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 504, 506(2), 452 of the Indian Penal Code, under Section 135(1) of the G.P. Act and under Sections 3(1)(s), 3(2) p. 2 (va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, as well as the proceedings of the Special Atrocity Case No. 15 of 2024 pending in the Court of the learned 4th Additional District Judge, Jamnagar, so also all other consequential proceedings arising pursuant thereto. 3. Today, when the matter is called out, the complainant is personally present before this Court. She has also led an a4idavit, which is annexed at Annexure ‘C’ to the application. The complainant has admitted the contents of the said a4idavit. In the a4idavit, the complainant has categorically stated that with the intervention of the friends, family members and community people, the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved and there is no ill-will or any grievance amongst them. The complainant has also stated that she has received Rs. 75,000/- from the Social Welfare Department, Govt. of Gujarat, and she is ready and willing to return back the same to the Social Welfare Department, Govt. of Gujarat, within a reasonable time. 4. Considering the issue involved in the present application as well as considering the fact that the dispute has been amicably resolved between the parties, with the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the present application is taken up for nal disposal. 5. RULE returnable forthwith. Learned APP Mr. Manan p. 3 Maheta waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent no.1 – State and learned advocate Mr. Fenil H. Bathiya waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent no.2 – complainant. 6. Learned advocate for the applicant-accused has submitted that since the dispute has been amicably resolved between the parties, the application may be allowed and the impugned FIR as well as the proceedings of the Special Atrocity Case may be quashed and set-aside. 7. The complainant, who is personally present in the Court, has categorically stated before this Court that she has no objection if the application is allowed and the FIR as well as the proceedings of the Special Atrocity Case are quashed and set- aside. Thus, it appears from the aforesaid that sending the applicants-accused to face the trial would be nothing but a futile exercise and would amount to abuse of process of law. 8. The relevant paragraphs of the a4idavit led by the complainant – Chhayaben D/o Karshanbhai Ramdas Makwana, read thus : “2. I say that I have gone through the memo of petition and the facts and grounds stated in the memo of petition are not disputed by me. At the outset I say and submit that the disputes and grievances of both the sides have been amicably settled and I do not wish to prosecute the petitioner any further with respect to the FIR being C.R. No. 11202056240245/2024 with Kalavad Rural Police Station, Dist. Jamnagar, by me for the o,ences punishable u/s. 365, 323, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 504, 506(2), p. 4 452 of IPC and Sec. 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. I say that the there was no enmity between myself and the present petitioner. In fact, both the sides are known to each other since many years as petitioner no. 1&2 are my brothers and others are from my village and nearby villages. I say that I have settled the dispute with the petitioners and I do not wish to go on with the FIR 6led against him. I say and submit that FIR lodged out of misunderstanding, misconception, desperation, anger and anxiety and therefore also I do not want to prosecute petitioners any further for the FIR impugned in the present petition. I say that dispute between the parties is predominantly and basically private and personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In fact, during the tough times present petitioners supported me and helped me in the best possible manner. 4. I say that after registration of the impugned FIR and 6lling of charge sheet, a meeting took place between both the sides, elderly persons of the society, family members and well- wishers of both the sides and the misunderstanding between us got cleared. Also upon intervention of common friends, the matter has been resolved between us and an amicable settlement has been arrived at between the parties to the e,ect that respondent no.2 will continue to stay in ashram or wherever she wants to reside without any interference on the part of petitioners so as to maintain harmony, peaceful and healthy personal relationships in future. In view of amicable settlement, I have agreed to support the petitioners in respect of prosecution initiated against the petitioners on the basis of impugned FIR. After due deliberations and discussions amongst the parties, I have realized that FIR is the result of misunderstanding and misconception of facts. Hence, as per the mutual understanding and settlement, I have agreed to give consent for quashing of impugned FIR. Thus, I do not want to prosecute the impugned FIR against the petitioners. In the circumstances, it is crystal clear that dispute between the parties is purely of personal/private nature and no public policy is involved in the same. It is also clearly re<ected that the o,ences are entirely personal in nature and, therefore, do not a,ect public peace or tranquility and my respectful submission quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace, harmony and would secure ends of justice. I have also realized the nature of hardships and inconvenience, socially and mentally, it will cause to both the sides, if the criminal proceedings continue and both the sides are subjected to rigors of criminal p. 5 trial, it will immensely a,ect our future prospects of better life. 5. In the facts and circumstances as narrated above, I at my free will, wish and desire am stating on oath that I do not wish to prosecute the criminal proceedings with petitioners as the dispute between us has been amicably settled. I state that the complaint 6led by me being F.I.R. being C.R. No. 11202056240245/2024 with Kalavad Rural Police Station, Dist. Jamnagar, charge-sheet no. 21 of 2024 and Special Atrocity Case No. 15 of 2024 pending before Ld. 4nd Additional District Judge, at Jamnagar may be quashed in the interest of justice.” 9. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties as well as considering the facts and circumstances arising out of the present application and taking into consideration the decisions rendered in the cases of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Another, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582, Nikhil Merchant vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, reported in (2009) 1 GLH 31, Manoj Sharma vs. State & Others, reported in (2009) 1 GLH 190, and Narinder Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab & Another, reported in (2014) 2 Crime 67 (SC) as well as State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal, reported in AIR 1992 SC 604, it appears that further continuation of the criminal proceedings in relation to the impugned FIR and the Special Atrocity case against the applicants-accused would be nothing but unnecessary harassment to the applicants-accused. It further appears that the trial would be a futile exercise and continuing further with the proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR and the Special Atrocity Case would amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, to secure the ends of justice, the impugned FIR as p. 6 well as the proceedings of the Special Atrocity Case, so also all other consequential proceedings arising pursuant thereto are required to be quashed and set-aside in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 10. In the result, the application is allowed. The First Information Report No. 11202056240245 of 2024 registered with the Kalavad Rural Police Station, District Jamnagar, for the o4ences punishable under Sections 365, 323, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 504, 506(2), 452 of the Indian Penal Code, under Section 135(1) of the G.P. Act and under Sections 3(1)(s), 3(2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, as well as the proceedings of the Special Atrocity Case No. 15 of 2024 pending in the Court of the learned 4th Additional District Judge, Jamnagar, so also all other consequential proceedings arising pursuant thereto are hereby ordered to be quashed and set-aside, qua the present applicants only. 11. The respondent No.2 - original complainant is directed to deposit the amount of compensation of Rs.75,000/- to the Social Welfare Department, Govt. of Gujarat, within a period of four weeks from today. 12. Rule made absolute. Direct service is permitted. (VIMAL K. VYAS, J) AMAR SINGH