Gujarat High Court
Bharatbhai Manubhai Koladiya vs State Of Gujarat on 6 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/8825/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (FOR CONSENT QUASHING) NO.
8825 of 2025
==========================================================
BHARATBHAI MANUBHAI KOLADIYA & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
JAIVIK UDAY BHATT(7319) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR UDAY H BHATT(6457) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 06/08/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Learned advocate Mr. Karan Sanghani 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 note 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 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C."), the applicants have prayed to quash and set aside the complaint being FIR No. 11210015240109 of 2024 registered with DCB Police Station, Surat City, for the offences under Sections 406, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120(b) and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:52:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/8825/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/08/2025 undefined
"Allegation levelled in the FIR is that, the complainant is having ancestral land bearing Survey No.636/3 Block No.796 at village Puna. The complainant has self acquired non agriculture land bearing Block No.04 paiki 2, TP Scheme No.19, FP No.89, admeasuring 12465 sq.mtrs. Situated at village Magob, Surat. The complainant is also having land bearing Block No.31/A, New Block No.41, admeasuring 23767 sq.mtrs. Situated at village Chedcha, Surat, in which names of three sisters of the complainant were muted. Due to the health issues of the complainant and as his sons along with himself, does not live in India, there was nobody in the family of the complainant who can take care of the above mentioned lands in Surat. The complainant in order to make the arrangement of the said lands came to Surat in December, 2023 along with his son Rajnikant and his daughter in law i.e. Geetaben. The complainant came to Surat for the purpose of deleting names of three sisters from the revenue records pertaining to land at village Chedcha as well as for appointing some person for upkeep and taking care of the other lands. Complainant came into contact with one Bharatbhai Manubhai Koladiya present applicant No.1 in the year 2017 in relation to co-owned land bearing Survey No.290/1 situated at village Puna, Surat. Due to disputes between the family members, a Satakhat was executed in favour of accused No.1 who assured to clear the disputes. Since the disputes were internally settled, the accused no.1 helped the complainant in sale of such land to Shard Kumbhani in the year 2023. Dispute is private in nature. The petitioner has no antecedent."
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 an Affidavit, which is taken / placed on record. In the Affidavit, the original complainant who appears through virtual mode, has categorically stated that the dispute with the applicant/s 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.
"The complainant has affirmed the factum of settlement and stated in the affidavit that, the FIR was lodged due to misunderstanding between the parties and all the disputes between the parties are settled now. The parties have Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:52:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/8825/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/08/2025 undefined settled all grievance and no dispute between the parties remains now. The settlement is arrived at due to intervention of family members and common friends. The accused persons were arrested and during the course of hearing of their bail applications, I had given consent for grant of bail to the accused persons. The said consent was also given on the ground that the dispute is now amicably settled between the parties. I submit that I had filed Special Civil Suit No.62/2024 which came to be disposed off on the basis of settlement between the parties as reflected in the judgment and decree dated 01.07.2024 passed by the Court.
I along with my family members had also filed Regular Civil Suit No.273/2024 which also stands disposed of on the ground of settlement. The accused persons along with the other persons involved in the suit has also consented to give up their claim over the property and therefore, the suit was disposed of vide judgment and decree dated 22.01.2025. It is further to note that the said suit being Special Civil Suit No.299/2024 was also disposed of vide judgment and decree dated 22.01.2025 on the ground of settlement between the parties. I therefore state that the entire dispute is resolved and the transactions are reversed in favour of the present deponent and his family members."
6. 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), 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 Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:52:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/8825/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/08/2025 undefined proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C..
7. In the result, the application is allowed. The impugned complaint being FIR No. 11210015240109 of 2024 registered with DCB Police Station, Surat City as well as all consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof are hereby quashed and set aside qua the applicant/s herein. If the applicant/s is/are in jail, the jail authority concerned is directed to release the applicant/s forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case.
Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) SUCHIT Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:52:30 IST 2025