Gujarat High Court
Amratbhai Vaghubhai Desai vs State Of Gujarat on 3 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/14965/2024 ORDER DATED: 03/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 14965
of 2024
============================================
AMRATBHAI VAGHUBHAI DESAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
============================================
Appearance:
MR NITINBHAI M DESAI(13406) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR.KIRIT R CHAUDHARI(3745) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 03/10/2025
ORAL ORDER
Learned Advocate Mr. R. A. Patel, states that he has
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.
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 Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as
"BNSS"), the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the
complaint being FIR No.11191045240622 of 2024 registered
with Sola High Court Police Station, Ahmedabad City, for
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/14965/2024 ORDER DATED: 03/10/2025
undefined
the offences under Sections 64(2)(m) and 127(4) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and all the consequential
proceedings arising therefrom.
4) Learned APP for the respondent - State has opposed the present
petition on the ground that the victim was impregnated by the
petitioner - accused and on 05.11.2024 the victim approached
this Court for termination of her pregnancy and DNA of fetus and
material evidence were collected. The offence is non
compoundable and serious against the society. Keeping in mind
the petitioner and victim both are major and unmarried and both
entered into one agreement and on the strength of the alleged
agreement lived together for five months and consensual
relationship was developed and thereafter complaint was filed.
Hence, she has requested to dismiss the present petition.
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 03.10.2025
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/14965/2024 ORDER DATED: 03/10/2025
undefined
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 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 528 of the BNSS.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/14965/2024 ORDER DATED: 03/10/2025
undefined
7) Before parting, the Court notes that nowadays the Court come
across with the matters having consensual relationship between
the victim and accused and alleging that police are not
registering the FIR the complainant approaches this Court by
way of filing application seeking direction for registration of FIR.
When the complaint is eventually registered a consent quashing
petition is filed, which is nothing but abuse of process of law.
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
as well as judicial time. In the present case also the complainant
initially approached this Court for termination of her pregnancy
subsequently after 8 months she wants to quash and set aside
the proceedings. Considering aforesaid aspects, and conduct of
the complainant present being a case of misuse of power of
Court and police machinery on the part of complainant and to
curb down such practice 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 - respondent no.2 is
ordered to deposit in State Legal Services Authority within a
period of ONE WEEK from today.
8.1) The impugned complaint being FIR No.11191045240622 of
2024 registered with Sola High Court Police Station,
Ahmedabad City, 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.
8.2) If the complainant fails to deposit the amount of cost then the
respondent - State is at liberty to file appropriate proceedings
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/14965/2024 ORDER DATED: 03/10/2025
undefined
against the complainant to recover the amount and to register
the criminal proceedings for abusing the process of law and to
file such complaint.
9) 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
