Gujarat High Court
Altaf Kasam Nareja vs State Of Gujarat on 6 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/4448/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 4448 of 2025
==========================================================
ALTAF KASAM NAREJA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SALIM M SAIYED(5172) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
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 Ms. Zalak Suthar, states that she 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 notice 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 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the applicant has
prayed to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated
24.07.2024 passed by the the learned Juridical Magistrate First
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/4448/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/08/2025
undefined
Class, Mandvi-Kutchchh and in Criminal Case No.891 of 2019
and Judgment dated 06.02.2025 passed by the learned 8 th
Additional Sessions Court, Bhuj in Criminal Appeal No.110 of
2024 confirming the order and judgment passed by the learned
Judaical Magistrate First Class, Mandvi.
5. Learned advocate for the applicants submits that the
applicants have nothing to do with the offence and they are
falsely implicated in the offence. However, the matter has been
amicably settled between the parties, and they have no objection
if the complaint is quashed. Therefore, the application may be
allowed.
6. 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 have
categorically stated that the dispute with the applicant 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.
7. Having heard the learned advocates on both sides and
considering the documents on record, the matter has now been
amicably resolved between the parties and in this regard the
complainant has filed affidavit on record stating that he has no
objection if the compliant is quashed. Therefore, no fruitful
purpose would be served by proceeding with the matter further.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/4448/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/08/2025
undefined
But, as accused has settled the dispute at belated stage before
this Court, in view of the decision rendered in the case of
Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H, reported in 2010(5)
SCC 663, accused is required to be saddled with cost. subject to
deposit of 15% of the amount of cheque i.e. Rs.22,500/- out of
the total cheque amount of Rs.1,50,000/- before the Gujarat
State Legal Services Authority.
8. In view of 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 proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C./528 of BNSS.
9. In the aforesaid backdrop, complaint is filed. It is
necessary to consider whether the power conferred by the High
Court under Section 528 of the BNSS/482 of the Cr.P.C. of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/4448/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/08/2025
undefined
Code of Criminal Procedure is warranted. It is true that the
powers under Section 528 of the BNSS/482 of the Cr.P.C.are
very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great
caution in its exercise. The Court must be careful to see that its
decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles.
The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate
prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of a State
should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a
case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so
when the evidence has not been collected and produced before
the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are
of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective
without sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can
be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will
exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding
at any stage as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided in the
case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Ravi Shankar
Srivastava, IAS & Anr., reported in AIR 2006 SC 2872.
10. However, as accused has settled the dispute at belated
stage before this Court, in view of the decision rendered in the
case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H, reported in
2010(5) SCC 663, accused is required to be saddled with cost.
subject to deposit of 15% of the amount of cheque i.e.
Rs.22,500/- out of the total cheque amount of Rs.1,50,000/-
before the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority.
10. In the result, the application is allowed. The impugned
judgment and order dated 24.07.2024 passed by the the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/4448/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/08/2025
undefined
learned Juridical Magistrate First Class, Mandvi-Kutchchh
and in Criminal Case No.891 of 2019 and Judgment dated
06.02.2025 passed by the learned 8 th Additional Sessions
Court, Bhuj in Criminal Appeal No.110 of 2024 confirming
the order and judgment passed by the learned Judaical
Magistrate First Class, Mandvi as well as all consequential
proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof are hereby quashed
and set aside qua the applicant herein. Rule is made absolute.
Direct service is permitted. If the applicants are in jail, the jail
authority concerned is directed to release the applicants
forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ALI
