Gujarat High Court
Surbha Balwantbhai Rahol vs State Of Gujarat on 17 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/1198/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (FOR CONSENT
QUASHING) NO. 1198 of 2025
============================================
SURBHA BALWANTBHAI RAHOL & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
============================================
Appearance:
DR. HIREN S SOMAIYA(8031) for the petitioner(s) No. 1,2
HARSH A VYAS(9330) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR TIRTHRAJ PANDYA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 17/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. RULE. Learned advocates waive service of note 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 this application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as "BNSS"),
the petitioners has prayed to quash and set aside the complaint being
I-C.R.No.88/2011 registered with Tarapur Police Station, District
Anand, for the offences under Sections 465, 468, 420 and 120(B) of
Indian Penal Code, 1860 and all the consequential proceedings arising
therefrom.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/1198/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
4. The complainant - respondent no.2 is appeared through virtual
mode and admitted the factum of settlement. The learned Advocate for
the complainant has identified the complainant. The complainant has
stated in his affidavit as under:
"1. That I am the complainant of Criminal Complaint registered
vide C.R.No.I-88 of 2011 culminated as CRIMINAL CASE
NO.1160 OF 2013 under the provision of U/s 465, 468, 471,
120-B of I.P.C. With Tarapur Police Station of District Anand
against the accused named therein. I state that upon the
intervention of the common friends, prominent members of
the society, elderly persons, friends and mediators, an
amicable settlement has been arrived at between me and the
accused and since the offences alleged against petitioner in
the complaints is personal in nature not affecting any interest
of the State Government and since no direct transaction is
taken place between petitioner and respondent nor petitioner
involved directly or indirectly in to the alleged offence, even
stated in first information report.
2. C.R. No. I-88 of 2011 culminated as CRIMINAL CASE NO.1160
of 2013 under the provision of U/s 465, 468, 471, 120-B of
I.P.C. and all consequential proceedings if any accrue. I state
and submit that this affidavit is filed without any pressure,
coercion or force and I am bound to respect the same.
3. Due to none execution of sale deed as per agreement to sale
executed between parties, I was being aggrieved the file civil
suit for specific performance before the Court of Civil Judge
Khambhat vide 219 of 2012 which was decreed in favour of
Respondent no.2 and the Ld. Trial Court ordered to Applicants
for executing sale deed of aforesaid land, however, even
being judgment debtor the applicants reluctant to execute
sale deed, therefore, the Respondent no.2 file Execution
Petition (Regular Execution Petition No.13 of 22) and the legal
heirs of decide Kanubhai file appeal against the decree and
judgment passed in RCS/210/2012 before the Court of
Additional Session Judge, Khambhat vide First Appeal No.13
of 2024. During pendency of execution and appeal third party
intervene and agreed to purchase a land by paying hefty
amount so all parties are agreed to resolve the issue
amicably.
4. That pursuant to amicable settlement arrived between
Applicants, Respondent No.2 and Third Party i.e. Legal Heirs
of Ajit Sinh Raol the land is purchased by L.R. of Ajit Sinh and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/1198/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
he paid rupees 5,50,000/- to the Respondent for relinquish his
right whatsoever created either by Agreement to sale or by
way of decree passes in RCS 219 of 2012.
5. That Respondent No.2 who invested rupees 4,00,000/- as
earnest amount get rupees 5,50,000/- and he also withdraw
Execution Petition filed by him by waiving his right pursuant to
decree passed in RCS 219 of 2012. Simultaneously, the legal
heirs of Kanubhai also withdraw the first appeal preferred by
them before concern court and it is agreed between the
parties that present criminal case 1160 of 2013 arisen out of
Cr-I 88 of 2011 is also put to an end."
5. Learned advocate 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 at Annexure - B, which is
placed on record. In the Affidavit, the original complainant has
categorically stated that the dispute with the petitioners 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.
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), considering the fact that the dispute is
private in nature, the complaint was lodged in the year 2011 and till
date charge is yet to be framed and no witness has been examined.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/1198/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
Even otherwise the petitioner no.1 - accused no.1 is expired during the
pendency of the trial hence offence against accused no.1 is abated,
and considering that the dispute is amicably resolved, in the opinion of
this Court, the further continuation of criminal proceedings against the
petitioners 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 in view of the law laid down in cases of State of
Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajanlal & Ors., (1992 Suppl. 1 SCC 2020)
and Sarabjit Kaur Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in (2023) 5
SCC 360. 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.
7. In the result, the application is allowed. The impugned complaint
being I-C.R.No.88/2011 registered with Tarapur Police Station,
District Anand, as well as all consequential proceedings initiated in
pursuance thereof are hereby quashed and set aside qua the
petitioner/s herein. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
If the petitioners/s is/are in jail, the jail authority concerned is directed
to release the petitioners/s forthwith, if not required in connection with
any other case.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ANKIT
