Gujarat High Court
Zishan Mehbubali Malnash vs State Of Gujarat on 8 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/8680/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (FOR CONSENT
QUASHING) NO. 8680 of 2025
============================================
ZISHAN MEHBUBALI MALNASH & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
============================================
Appearance:
MR MASOOM K SHAH(6516) 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 : 08/08/2025
ORAL ORDER
1) Learned advocate Ms. Devanshi Malkan for Mr. Yash Dave, states that they have instructions to appear on behalf of the original complainant and thereby, seeks permission to file his Vakalatnama. The Registry is directed to accept the vakalatnama. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
2) RULE. Learned advocates waive service of notice of rule on behalf of the respective respondents.
3) Present petition is dismissed qua the petitioner no.1 - Zishan Mehbubali Malnash, whereas, the petition is considered for the petitioner nos.2 to 4.
4) 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.
5) By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C."), the petitioners have prayed to quash and set aside the complaint being FIR No.11210025244356 of 2024, registered with Limbayat Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Fri Aug 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 09 00:49:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/8680/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined Police Station, Surat for the offences under Sections 64(2)m, 77, 308(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
6) On the wedding day of the grand-daughter of respondent no.2 when the family of the groom called off the wedding upon discovering her previous love affair with the petitioner no.1. Thereafter, the respondent no.2 lodged Zero FIR in Rajasthan against the petitioners under various provisions of the BNS, specifically Sections 308(2), 77 and 64(2)(m). Thereafter, the FIR was transferred to Limbayat Police Station, Surat. The Investigating Officer has submitted report before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat, for adding Sections 115(2), 351(3), 356 and 54 of the BNS which came to be allowed. Thereafter, charge-sheet came to be filed which culminated into Criminal Case No.10253 of 2025, before the learned 6th Additional Judicial Magistrate. Now the issue is settled between the parties as the FIR was lodged based on misunderstanding. Hence, the present application.
7) 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 and victim have also filed an Affidavits at Annexure - D, placed on record. In the Affidavits, the original complainant and victim have categorically stated that the dispute with the petitioners has been resolved amicably and that they have no objection, if the present proceedings are quashed and set aside since there is no surviving grievance between them.
8) Learned APP has opposed the present petition on the ground that initially the petitioner no.1 was absconded and later on surrendered before police. The petitioner no.1 has committed non compoundable offence, therefore, considering seriousness of the Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Fri Aug 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 09 00:49:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/8680/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined offence, learned APP has requested to dismiss the present petition.
9) At the outset, the respondent no.2 remained present and both complainant and victim are having no objection if the proceedings are quashed and set aside qua present petitioners. While confirming about the factum of settlement at that time the respondent no.2 - Rahmattulah Mohammad Ali Bhati, stated that due to social pressure and intervention he is going to settle the dispute and he is afraid of social boycott. Perusing the complaint it appears that the allegations against the petitioner no.1 is serious as he viral the photographs of the victim and also allegation of rape. The petitioner no.1 has not only shot the nude photographs or videos of the victim but used the same and blackmailed the victim and also demanded money and on the date of nikaah of the victim he viral the video recording and photographs to her fiance on WhatsApp and due to this reason the victim had suffered loss. Considering the conduct as well as nature of offence as well as in view of the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Daxaben vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2022 SCC OnLine (SC) 936, and State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and Ors. reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688, this Court is not inclined to exercise discretion under Section 528 of the BNSS qua the petitioner no.1 only considering the seriousness of the offence and the offence is non-compoundable and involvement of the petitioner no.1.
10) So far the petitioner nos.2 to 4 are concerned, 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 Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Fri Aug 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 09 00:49:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/8680/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined & 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 considering the facts that the allegations are general in nature against them and the petitioner nos.2 to 4 are not involved in rape, in the opinion of this Court, the further continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner nos.2 to 4 in relation to the impugned FIR would cause unnecessary harassment to the petitioner nos.2 to 4. 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 proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof under Section 528 of the BNSS.
11) In the result, the application is partly allowed qua petitioner nos.2 to 4 only. The impugned complaint being FIR No.11210025244356 of 2024, registered with Limbayat Police Station, Surat as well as all consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof are hereby quashed and set aside qua the petitioner nos.2 to 4 herein.
12) Rule is made absolute qua petitioner nos.2 to 4 and discharged qua petitioner no.1. Direct service is permitted. If the petitioner nos.2 to 4 are in jail, the jail authority concerned is directed to release the petitioner nos.2 to4 forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ANKIT Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Fri Aug 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 09 00:49:29 IST 2025