Gujarat High Court
Manishbhai Bhanjibhai Baraiya vs State Of Gujarat on 24 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/22866/2018 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 22866 of 2018
==========================================================
MANISHBHAI BHANJIBHAI BARAIYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
DR BALRAM D JAIN(3146) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS. DHARTI P RATANI(8870) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. MANAN MAHETA, for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL K. VYAS
Date : 24/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. RULE returnable forthwith. Learned APP Mr. Manan Maheta waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent no. 1 - State and learned advocate Ms.Dharti Ratani waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent no.2 - original complainant.
2. By way of preferring the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant, who is the husband of the complainant, seeks to invoke the inherent powers of this Court, praying to quash and set-aside the First Information Report being I- C.R. No.110 of 2018 registered with the Adajan Police Station, District - Surat, for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 504, 506(2) and 507 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as all other consequential proceedings arising pursuant thereto.
Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by PIYUSH RAMESHBHAI KANOJIYA(HC01390) on Tue Nov 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 25 23:05:29 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/22866/2018 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined
3. Today, when the matter is called out, the complainant, who is personally present before this Court, has produced her identity proof and has also filed an affidavit dated 10.09.2025, which are ordered to be taken on record. In the said affidavit, the complainant has categorically stated that by mutual consent of the parties, divorce decree has already been passed by the learned Judge, Family Court No.2, Surat. Now, therefore, the dispute has been amicably resolved between the parties and there is no ill-will or any grievance amongst them.
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 final disposal.
5. Learned advocate Dr.Balram Jain appearing for the applicant- accused has taken this Court through the factual matrix arising out of the present application. At the outset, learned advocate has submitted that the parties have amicably resolved the dispute inter- se and they do not want to proceed further with the matter. He has therefore, submitted that continuing further with the proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR would be nothing but a futile exercise and it would amount to abuse of process of law. Further, the same would create unnecessary harassment to the parties. Learned advocate has, therefore, submitted that the present application may be allowed and the impugned FIR may be quashed and set-aside in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by PIYUSH RAMESHBHAI KANOJIYA(HC01390) on Tue Nov 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 25 23:05:29 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/22866/2018 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined
6. The relevant paragraph of the affidavit reads thus:
"We has already settled our disputes between us, terms conditions are complied before the family court and therefore, we do not want to proceed the matter further. We are filing this affidavit cum mutual understanding agreement for consent quashing without any threat, coercion or misrepresentation".
7. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties as well as having considered the affidavit filed by the complainant and the facts & circumstances emerging from the present application as well as 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 continuing further with the criminal proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR against the applicant-accused would be nothing but a futile exercise and it would amount to abuse of process of law. Further, the same would put the parties to unnecessary harassment/hardships. Hence, to secure the ends of justice, the impugned FIR and all other consequential proceedings arising pursuant thereto are required to be quashed and set-aside in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
8. This Court has also considered the recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of Shobhit Kumar Mittal vs. State Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by PIYUSH RAMESHBHAI KANOJIYA(HC01390) on Tue Nov 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 25 23:05:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/22866/2018 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in 2025 INSC 1152, more particularly, paragraphs-22 and 23 of the judgment.
9. In the result, the application is allowed. The proceedings of the First Information Report being I- C.R. No.110 of 2018 registered with the Adajan Police Station, District - Surat, for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 504, 506(2) and 507 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as all other consequential proceedings arising pursuant thereto are hereby ordered to be quashed and set-aside.
10. Rule made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(VIMAL K. VYAS, J) prk Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by PIYUSH RAMESHBHAI KANOJIYA(HC01390) on Tue Nov 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 25 23:05:29 IST 2025