Gujarat High Court
Kanubhai Kamabhai Chavada vs State Of Gujarat on 30 June, 2025
Author: Nirzar S. Desai
Bench: Nirzar S. Desai
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/22606/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (FOR CONSENT QUASHING)
NO.22606 of 2024
=========================================
KANUBHAI KAMABHAI CHAVADA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
=========================================
Appearance :
MR MAHESH K POOJARA for the Applicant.
DARSH P DESAI for the Respondent No.2.
MR RAJESH B DESAI for the Respondent No.2.
MR RONAK RAVAL, APP for the Respondent No.1.
=========================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 30/06/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties. Learned advocate Mr. Rajesh Desai states that
he has an instructions to appear for the respondent No.2 –
complainant. He is permitted to file his appearance forthwith.
2. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as
learned advocate appearing for the Complainant waive service of
Rule on behalf of the respective respondents.
3. Considering the issue involved in the present
application and with consent of the learned advocates appearing
for the respective parties as well as considering the fact that the
dispute amongst the applicant and respondent No.2 has been
resolved amicably, this application is taken up for final disposal
forthwith.
Page 1 of 4
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Tue Jul 01 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 02 02:14:20 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/22606/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025
undefined
4. By way of this application under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to
as “BNSS”), the applicant has prayed for quashing and setting
aside F.I.R. bearing C.R. No. I – 41 of 2012 registered with
Patdi Police Station, Dist. Surendranagar for the commission of
offence punishable under Sections 403, 406, 409, 418, 420, 423,
465, 467, 468, 471, 477, 477 (A), 120-B, 34 and 511 of the Indian
Penal Code as well as all other consequential proceedings arising
out of the aforesaid FIR qua the applicant.
5. Learned advocate for the applicant has taken this Court
through the factual matrix arising out of the present application. At
the outset, it is submitted that the parties have amicably resolved
the issue and therefore, any further continuance of the proceedings
pursuant to the impugned FIR as well as any further proceedings
arising therefrom would create hardship to the applicant. It is
submitted that respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit in these
proceedings and has declared that the dispute between the
applicant and respondent No.2 is resolved due to intervention of
trusted persons of the society. It is further submitted that in view of
the fact that the dispute is resolved, the trial would be futile and
any further continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse
of process of law. It is therefore submitted that this Court may
exercise its inherent powers conferred under Section 528 of the
BNSS and allow the application as prayed for.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
State has opposed the present application and submitted that
considering the seriousness of the offence, the complaint in
question may not be quashed and the present application may be
rejected.
Page 2 of 4
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Tue Jul 01 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 02 02:14:20 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/22606/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025
undefined
7. Learned advocate for respondent No.2 has reiterated
the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the applicant.
The learned advocate for respondent No.2 also relied upon the
affidavit filed by respondent No.2 – Rajeshbhai Jayantilal Pandya
dated 3.10.2024. Respondent No.2 is present through virtual mode
before the Court and is identified by learned advocate for
respondent No.2. On inquiry made by the Court, respondent No.2
has declared before this Court that the dispute between the
applicant and respondent No.2 is resolved due to intervention of
trusted persons of the society and therefore, now the grievance
stands redressed and hence, he does not have any objection if the
impugned FIR is quashed. It is therefore submitted that the present
application may be allowed.
8. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties, considering the facts and circumstances arising
out of the present application as well as taking into consideration
the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases
of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., 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 & Anr., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 31,
Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Ors., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 190
and Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported
in 2014 (2) Crime 67 (SC), it appears that further continuation of
criminal proceedings in relation to the impugned FIR against the
applicant would be unnecessary harassment to the applicant. I
have also considered the latest decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai
Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others v. State of Gujarat,
Page 3 of 4
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Tue Jul 01 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 02 02:14:20 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/22606/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025
undefined
Criminal Appeal No.1723 of 2017 dated 4.10.2017 and the
guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said
decision, particularly paragraph 15. Considering the nature of
disputes between the parties which are all private in nature, I am
of the opinion that the matter requires consideration. It appears
that the trial would be futile and further continuance of the
proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR would amount to abuse
of process of law and hence, to secure the ends of justice, the
impugned FIR is required to be quashed and set aside in exercise
of powers conferred under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
9. Resultantly, this application is allowed and the
impugned F.I.R. bearing C.R. No. I – 41 of 2012 registered with
Patdi Police Station, Dist. Surendranagar is hereby quashed
and set aside qua the applicant. Consequently, all other
proceedings arising out of the aforesaid F.I.R. are also quashed and
set aside qua the applicant. Accordingly, Rule is made absolute.
Direct service is permitted.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J)
SAVARIYA
Page 4 of 4
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Tue Jul 01 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 02 02:14:20 IST 2025