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

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

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

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.