Gujarat High Court
Gaurav Harshadbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 13 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3341/2024 ORDER DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 3341 of
2024
============================================
GAURAV HARSHADBHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
============================================
Appearance:
MR TUSHAR CHAUDHARY(5316) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR DHIRAJ J DHARANI(3229) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS.DILBUR CONTRACTOR(6388) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS DHWANI TRIPATHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 13/08/2025
ORAL ORDER
1) RULE. Learned advocates waive service of notice of rule on behalf of the respective respondents.
2) 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.
3) By way of present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "CRPC"), the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the complaint being FIR No.11195034240054 of 2024 registered with Palanpur East Police Station, District Banaskantha for the offences under Sections 376(2)(n), 417 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:54:30 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/3341/2024 ORDER DATED: 13/08/2025 undefined
4) The petitioner being a Doctor and the respondent no.2 being a Nurse were working together in the same Hospital. Being the staff of same Hospital they came in contact with each other and gradually they came close despite having fully aware that they both are married but some how the relationship was developed between them with consent of each other. Thereafter, on 31.01.2024 the respondent no.2 had filed the impugned complaint.
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 dated 13.08.2025 which is placed on record. In the Affidavit, the original complainant has categorically stated that the dispute with the petitioner has been resolved amicably and that she has no objection, if the present proceedings are quashed and set aside since there is no surviving grievance between them. The complainant is present in-person and identified by her learned Advocate. The complainant has admitted the factum of settlement.
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), Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:54:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/3341/2024 ORDER DATED: 13/08/2025 undefined considering the facts that though the offence is non compoundable and consent quashing is not permissible but at the same time the Court has considered that if the victim turns hostile then there would be bleak chance of conviction and even otherwise considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sonu Alias Subhash Kumar Vs State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in AIR 2021 SC 1405; Anurag Soni Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in 2019 (13) SCC 1; Naim Ahmed Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 66, and Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Ravi Shankar Srivastava, IAS & Nr., reported in AIR 2006 SC 2872, this Court is inclined to quash and set aside the impugned FIR and even otherwise the complainant has remained personally present before this Court and affirmed the factum of filing of settlement affidavit by her which is already taken on record. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the further continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner in relation to the impugned FIR would cause unnecessary harassment to the petitioner. 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 482 of the Cr.P.C..
7) Before parting, the Court notes that the proceeding initiated by the complainant / victim is being misused. She has set the criminal machinery into motion, and now the Court has come across the matter. Such a tendency is growing day by day. First, a complaint is filed before the police authorities and if the police do not take any action or register the complaint, the complainant straightaway approaches the High Court seeking Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:54:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/3341/2024 ORDER DATED: 13/08/2025 undefined issuance of directions for registration of FIR and once an order is passed by the High Court to look into the grievance of the victim, even though a cognizable offence is disclosed the police fail to register the FIR and take action against the erring officer. When the complaint is eventually registered, a consent quashing petition is filed, which is nothing but abuse of process of law. Under the pretext of a judicial order, the FIR gets registered and later the dispute is settled, amounting to an arm-twisting exercise. Such a practice needs to be deprecated, as it not only sets the criminal machinery in motion but is also a waste of police time in investigation and increases the burden on the Court. Considering aforesaid aspects, present being a case of misuse of power of Court and police machinery on the part of complainant, the complainant is required to be saddled with cost, which is quantified at Rs.50,000/-.
8) In the result, the petition is allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.50,000/- by the complainant to be deposited in State Legal Services Authority within a period of ONE WEEK from today. The impugned complaint being FIR No.11195034240054 of 2024 registered with Palanpur East Police Station, District Banaskantha as well as all consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof are hereby quashed and set aside qua the petitioner herein. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service is permitted. If the petitioner is in jail, the jail authority concerned is directed to release the petitioner 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 Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:54:30 IST 2025