[Cites 16, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Akash Tarachand Ramchandani vs State Of Gujarat on 29 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/9460/2026 ORDER DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 9460 of 2026
========================================================
AKASH TARACHAND RAMCHANDANI & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
========================================================
Appearance:
MR KISHAN R CHAKWAWALA(9846) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR RM CHAKWAWALA(1519) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR RUTURAJ NANAVATI(5624) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR CM SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 29/04/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP Mr.Aditya
Jadeja and learned advocate Mr.Ruturaj Nanavati waive service
of notice of rule for the respective respondents.
2. By way of this application under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants have prayed
to quash and set aside the FIR being C.R.No.I - 99 of 2019
registered with Sardarnagar Police Station for the offences
under Sections 307, 395, 397, 384 etc. of Indian Penal Code, u/s
135(1) of the G.P.Act and all the consequential proceedings
arising therefrom.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/9460/2026 ORDER DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
4. Heard learned advocate Mr.Kishan R. Chakwawala
for the applicants, learned APP Mr. Aditya Jadeja for the
respondent no.1 - State and learned advocate Mr. Ruturaj
Nanavati for the respondent no.2 - original complainant.
5. Learned advocate Mr.Kishan R. Chakwawala for the
applicants submits that the dispute between the parties has
been amicably settled between the parties and the respondent
no.2 - original complainant does not wish to prosecute the
matter further. The compromise has been entered into
voluntarily, without any coercion, undue influence or pressure
and, therefore, the respondent no.2 has no objection if the
impugned FIR as well as all the other consequential
proceedings arising pursuant thereto are quashed against the
applicants - accused.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Ruturaj Nanavati for the
respondent no.2 - original complainant submits that on
23.04.2026, the respondent no.2 - original complainant was
present before this Court and had produced his affidavit stating
that the dispute between the parties is amicably settled and he
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/9460/2026 ORDER DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
has no objection if the impugned FIR is quashed The affidavit
filed by the respondent no. 2 is taken on record. Learned
advocate further submits that the victim - injured is present in
person before this Court and has produced his affidavit, which is
taken on record. Learned advocate submits that considering the
fact that the dispute between the parties is amicably settled, the
parties have no objection if the impugned FIR is be quashed.
7. Learned APP Mr. Aditya Jadeja for the respondent
no.1 - State submits that the contents of the FIR are just and
proper; however, considering the fact that the dispute between
the parties is amicably settled, necessary order may be passed.
8. The affidavit filed by the respondent no. 2 - original
complainant reads as under:
I, NARESHKUMAR RAMGOPAL SHARMA, Aged: Adult,
Male, Hindu, Occupation: Business, Residing at:
Bunglow No.1, 2 Shailraj Bunglows, Ramdevnagar,
Satelite, Ahmedabad, is First informant in F.I.R. being
CR. No.1-99 of registered with the Sardarnagar Police
Station, Ahmedabad City for the offences punishable
under Sections- 307, 395, 397, 384, 201 and 120-B of
Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 135(1) of
G.P.Act. I further say and submit that I further state on
oath and solemnly affirm that;
1. I say and submit that the undersigned
being injured witness and applicants
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/9460/2026 ORDER DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
herein have entered into settlement on
account of passage of time as well as on
intervention of persons belonging to the
respective communities and well-wishers. I
further say and submit that both parties
have mutually understood to settle the
dispute amicably in the long interest of
both the parties.
2. The I further states that the undersigned
has no grudge against the present
applicants and further submits that as such
now have no objection if the present F.I.R.
as well as Sessions Case No. 132/2023 is
pending before the Ld. City Sessions
Court, Ahmedabad, are hereby quashed
against present applicants herein. I further
say that because of intervene of the friends,
respected member of community and
family members of both sides; the dispute
is settled between the parties amicably.
3. I further say and submit that aforesaid
affidavit is sworn by me without any undue
influence, threat or any kind of coercion
from the side of applicants herein. What is
stated in this affidavit is true, correct and
best to my knowledge.
9. The affidavit filed by the victim - injured reads as
under:
I, Jayesh Chimanlal Parekh, Aged: 49 Adult, Male,
Hindu, Occupation: Business, Residing at: D-105, Arjun
Ratna Apartment, Opp. Vardhman Nagar, Nr. C. P.
Nagar Part-1, Ghatlodia, Ahmedabad City, Gujarat-
380061, is victim and injured witness in F.I.R. being CR.
No. 1-99 of registered with the Sardarnagar Police
Station, Ahmedabad City for the offences punishable
under Sections- 307, 395, 397, 384, 201 and 120-B of
Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 135(1) of
G.P.Act. I further say and submit that I further state on
oath and solemnly affirm that;
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/9460/2026 ORDER DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
1. I say and submit that the undersigned
being victim/injured witness and
applicants herein have entered into
settlement on account of passage of time as
well as on intervention of persons
belonging to the respective communities
and well-wishers. I further say and submit
that both parties have mutually understood
to settle the dispute amicably in the long
interest of both the parties.
2. I further states that the undersigned has no
grudge against the present applicants and
further submits that as such now have no
objection if the present F.I.R. as well as
Sessions Case No. 132/2023 is pending
before the Ld. City Sessions Court,
Ahmedabad, are hereby quashed against
present applicants herein. I further say that
because of intervene of the friends,
respected member of community and
family members of both sides; the dispute
is settled between the parties amicably
3. I further say and submit that aforesaid
affidavit is sworn by me without any undue
influence, threat or any kind of coercion
from the side of applicants herein. What is
stated in this affidavit is true, correct and
best to my knowledge.
10. So far as Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is concerned, the
Apex Court in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir Alias Parbatbhai
Bhimsinhbhai Karmur Vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR
2017 SC 4843, has observed in Para-15 as under:
"15. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on
the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions:
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/9460/2026 ORDER DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
(i) Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High
Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or
to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not
confer new powers. It only recognizes and preserves
powers which inherent the High Court;
(ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to
quash a First Information Report or a criminal
proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been
arrived at between the offender and the victim is not
the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the
purpose of compounding an offence. While
compounding an offence, the power of the court is
governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under
Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-
compoundable.
(iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or
complaint should be quashed in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must
evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the
exercise of the inherent power,
(iv) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide
ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure
the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the
process of any court;
(v) The decision as to whether a complaint or First
Information Report should be quashed on the ground
that the offender and victim have settled the dispute,
revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of
each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles
can be formulated;
(vi) In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and
while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been
settled, the High Court must have due regard to the
nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious
offences involving mental depravity or offences such as
murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be
quashed though the victim or the family of the victim
have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly
speaking, not private in nature but have a serious
impact upon society. The decision to continue with the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/9460/2026 ORDER DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element
of public interest in punishing persons for serious
offences;
(vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be
criminal cases which have an overwhelming or
predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a
distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent
power to quash is concerned;
(viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from
commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or
similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may
in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties
have settled the dispute;
(ix) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal
proceeding if in view of the compromise between the
disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and
the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause
oppression and prejudice; and
(x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in
propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences
involving the financial and economic well-being of the
State have implications which lie beyond the domain of
a mere dispute between private disputants. The High
Court would be justified in declining to quash where
the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial
or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The
consequences of the act complained of upon the
financial or economic system will weigh in the
balance."
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Yogendra
Yadav Vs. The State of Jharkhand reported in AIR 2014 SC
2055, has held in Para-4 as under:
"l4. Now, the question before this Court is whether this Court can
compound the offences under Sections 326 and 307 of the IPC
which are non-compoundable. Needless to say that offences
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/9460/2026 ORDER DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
which are non-compoundable cannot be compounded by the
court. Courts draw the power of compounding offences from
Section 320 of the Code. The said provision has to be strictly
followed (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab). However, in a given
case, the High Court can quash a criminal proceeding in
exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Code having
regard to the fact that the parties have amicably settled their
disputes and the victim has no objection, even though the
offences are non-compoundable. In which cases the High
Court can exercise its discretion to quash the proceedings
will depend on facts and circumstances of each case. Offences
which involve moral turpitude, grave offences like rape,
murder etc. cannot be effaced by quashing the proceedings
because that will have harmful effect on the society. Such
offences cannot be said to be restricted to two individuals or
two groups. If such offences are quashed, it may send wrong
signal to the society. However, when the High Court is
convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature
and, therefore, do not affect public peace or tranquility and
where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of
compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends
of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them. In such cases,
the prosecution becomes a lame prosecution. Pursuing such a
lame prosecution would be waste of time and energy. That
will also unsettle the compromise and obstruct restoration of
peace.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Shiji
alias Pappu and Ors. Vs. Radhika and Anr. reported in AIR
2012 SC 499, has held in Para-13 as under:
"l3. It is manifest that simply because an offence is not
compoundable under Section 320, IPC is by itself no reason
for the High Court to refuse exercise of its power under
Section 482, Cr.P.C. That power can in our opinion be
exercised in cases where there is no chance of recording a
conviction against the accused and the entire exercise of a
trial is destined to be an exercise in futility. There is a subtle
distinction between compounding of offences by the parties
before the trial Court or in appeal on one hand and the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/9460/2026 ORDER DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
exercise of power by the High Court to quash the prosecution
under Section 482, Cr. P.C. on the other. While a Court trying
an accused or hearing an appeal against conviction, may not
be competent to permit compounding of an offence based on
a settlement arrived at between the parties in cases where the
offences are not compoundable under Section 320, the High
Court may quash the prosecution even in cases where the
offences with which the accused stand charged are non-
compoundable. The inherent powers of the High Court under
Section 482, Cr.P.C. are not for that purpose controlled by
Section 320, Cr.P.C. Having said so, we must hasten to add
that the plenitude of the power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. by
itself, makes it obligatory for the High Court to exercise the
same with utmost care and caution. The width and the nature
of the power itself demands that its exercise is sparing and
only in cases where the High Court is, for reasons to be
recorded, of the clear view that continuance of the
prosecution would be nothing but an abuse of the process of
law. It is neither necessary nor proper for us to enumerate the
situations in which the exercise of power under Section 482
may be justified. All that we need to say is that the exercise of
power must be for securing the ends of justice and only in
cases where refusal to exercise that power may result in the
abuse of the process of law. The High Court may be justified
in declining interference if it is called upon to appreciate
evidence, for, it cannot assume the role of an appellate court
while dealing with a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal
Procedure Code. Subject to the above, the High Court will
have to consider the facts and circumstances of each case to
determine whether it is a fit case in which the inherent powers
may be invoked."
13. Having heard the learned advocates for the
respective parties, considering the facts and circumstances
arising out of the present petition as well as taking into
consideration the decisions rendered in the cases of Gian Singh
Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 and
Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/9460/2026 ORDER DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
2014 (2) Crime 67 (SC) as well as State of Haryana Vs.
Bhajanlal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604, it appears that matter is
voluntarily amicable settled between the parties with the
intervention of members of their community and further
continuation of criminal proceedings in relation to the impugned
FIR against the petitioner would be unnecessary harassment to
the petitioner. It appears that the trial would be futile and further
continuance of the proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR
would amount to abuse of process of law and Court and hence,
to secure the ends of justice, the impugned FIR and other
consequential proceedings are required to be quashed and set
aside in exercise of powers conferred under Section 482 of the
Code.
14. The occurrence involved in this case as purely
personal or having overtones of criminal proceedings of private
nature, the parties on their own volition, without any coercion or
compulsion, willingly and voluntarily have buried their
differences and wish to accord a quietus to their dispute and
considering that continuation of proceedings would serve no
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/9460/2026 ORDER DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
useful purpose, this Court is satisfied that the matter deserves to
be brought to an end by exercising inherent jurisdiction.
15. Accordingly, the present application is allowed.
16. The impugned FIR being C.R.No.I - 99 of 2019
registered with Sardarnagar Police Station as well as all
consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof are
hereby quashed and set aside qua the applicant.
17. Connected application/s, if any, stand/s disposed of.
18. Rule made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(S. V. PINTO,J)
F.S.KAZI
