Gujarat High Court
Gajjar Dharmeshkumar Govindbhai vs Jadeja Chandradeep Singh on 10 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/11536/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (FOR CONSENT QUASHING) NO.
11536 of 2025
==========================================================
GAJJAR DHARMESHKUMAR GOVINDBHAI
Versus
JADEJA CHANDRADEEP SINGH & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS POOJA D RAVAL(11867) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
Ms MEGHA CHITALIYA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 10/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Learned advocate Ms. M.S. Acharya 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
14.12.2023 passed by the the learned 4 th Additional Chief
Judicial magistrate Gandhinagar in Criminal Case No.3062
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/11536/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
of 2022.
5. Learned dvocate 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.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/11536/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
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 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is
warranted. It is true that the powers under Section 482 of the
Code 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/11536/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
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.15,000/- out of the total cheque amount of Rs.1,00,000/-
before the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority.
11. In the result, the application is allowed. The impugned
complaint being judgment and order dated 14.12.2023 passed
by the the learned 4th Additional Chief Judicial magistrate
Gandhinagar in Criminal Case No.3062 of 2022 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
