Dineshbhai Najabhai Parmar vs State Of Gujarat
2026 Latest Caselaw 3224 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Dineshbhai Najabhai Parmar vs State Of Gujarat on 6 May, 2026

                                                                                                               NEUTRAL CITATION




                             R/CR.MA/8857/2026                                   ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026

                                                                                                               undefined




                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                         R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONSENT QUASHING)
                                           NO. 8857 of 2026

                       ==========================================================
                                            DINESHBHAI NAJABHAI PARMAR & ANR.
                                                          Versus
                                                 STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       VISHAL K ANANDJIWALA(7798) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
                       MR. ADITYA JADEJA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                       ==========================================================
                          CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO

                                                        Date : 06/05/2026
                                                         ORAL ORDER

1) RULE. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned

advocate Mr. Aditya Jadeja, appear and waive service of notice of

rule on behalf of their respective respondents.

2) By way of this application under Section 582 of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as "the

BNSS, 2023), the applicants have prayed for quashing and setting

aside F.I.R. bearing C.R.No.11196030260173 of 2026

registered with Sayajiganj Police Station, Vadodara City,

and to quash all other consequential proceedings, if any, arising

out of the aforesaid FIR against the applicant.

3) Heard learned advocate for the applicants, learned

Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Aditya Jadeja, for the respondent

No. 1 - State and learned advocate Mr. Yash Gupta for the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/8857/2026 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026

undefined

respondent no.2 - original complainant.

4) Both the learned advocates jointly submitted that during the

pendency of present petition, the matter is amicably settled

amongst the parties, and therefore, any further continuation of the

proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR would create hardship

to the parties and further continuation of the proceedings would

amount to abuse of process of law.

5) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the

application and submitted that looking to averments made in the

FIR, complaint may not be quashed.

6) Learned advocate Mr.Y.V.Gupta appearing for the

respondent No. 2 - original complainant tenders the settlement

affidavit, affirming, inter alia, by the complainant - Imtiyaz

Aljibhai Marediya, the same is ordered to be taken on record.

7) The affidavit of the Original complainant reads as under: -

I, Imtiyazali Aljibhai Marediya, aged 46 years, Male, residing at B/301, Maheraj Residency, Fateganj, Vadodara do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under;

1. I am the first informant in the FIR registered with Sayajiganj Police Station, Vadodara vide C.R. No. 11196030260173 of 2026 for the offences punishable 387, 294(b), 506(2) and 114 of IPC alongwith the provisions of section 40 and 42(a) of the Gujarat Money Lenders Act and therefore I am competent to swear this affidavit.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/8857/2026 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026

undefined

2. That, I had given total nine (9) cheques to the Petitioner No.1 Dinesh Parmar out of which two (2) cheques were deposited and proceedings u/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were initiated which has come to be registered vide Criminal Inquiry no.242 of 2026 before the Ld. ACJM Court at Vadodara, which has already come to be withdrawn by Petitioner No.1 in good faith and it is disposed vide order dated 10/04/2026. That, three (3) cheques are given by Petitioner No.1 Dinesh Parmar to the police pursuant to registration of the impugned FIR by me and four (4) cheques are returned by Petitioner No.1 Dinesh Parmar to my advocate Shri A. F. Shaikh - Sanad No. 1461/2000 which I have confirmed with him today at 3:35 PM telephonically and therefore I confirm receipt of all the cheques and in this way the dispute has come to amicable settled.

3. That, further towards settlement of my dues with the Petitioner no. 1 Dinesh Parmar I have paid an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakh only) to Petitioner no.1 'Dinesh N. Parmar on 10/04/2026.

4. That, there are no pending financial transactions with both the petitioners - which I declare by way of this affidavit.

5. I state and submit that the dispute with the accused persons is amicably settled and I do not want to proceed further against the petitioners herein.

6. There is nothing left between us to proceed further against anyone. Also, to proceed further against the petitioner would amount to mental agony and pain.

7. Therefore, in view of the amicable settlement, I give my express willingness and tender my consent to quash these criminal proceedings arising out of this said FIR for which I have no objection.

8. This affidavit has been sworn in by me without any force, coercion, inducement or pressure and with full consciousness of mind."

8) 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:

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/8857/2026 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026

undefined

"15. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions:

(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 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;

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/8857/2026 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026

undefined

(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 ."

9) On perusal of the FIR, the offense has been registered under

Sections 387, 294(b) 506(2) and 114 of the IPC, which reads as

under.

Section 387:-

Putting person in fear of death or of grievous hurt, in order to commit extortion

Whoever in order to the committing of extortion, puts or attempts to put any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt to that person or to any other, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 294(b)

Obscene acts and songs

Whoever, to the annoyance of others:

1. does any obscene act in any public place, or

2. sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both.

Section 506: - Punishment for criminal intimidation

Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/8857/2026 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026

undefined

If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc -- and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, of with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both."

10) An offense has also been registered under Sections 40 and

42(a) of the Gujarat Money Lenders Act, which reads as under: -

Section 40 : Penalty for molestation.

- Whoever molests or abets the molestation of a debtor for the recovery' of a loan due by him to a Money-Lender shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to twenty-five thousand rupees :Provided that in absence of the special and adequate reasons to the contrary to be mentioned in the judgements of the Court - (i) for the first offence, such imprisonment shall not be less than six months and such fine shall not be less than ten thousand rupees; (ii) for the second and subsequent offences, such imprisonment shall not be less than one year and such fine shall not be less than twenty-five thousand rupees.

Section 42(2) Penalty for contravention of section 5,19,33 or 38.

- Whoever-(a)carries on the business of money-lending in any area without registration in contravention of section 5; or

(b)fails to produce any record or document in compliance with any requirement made under sub-section (1) of section 19 or knowingly produces any false record or document; or

(c)obstructs any officer making an entry, inquiry, search, seizure or entrance under sub-section (2) of section 19: or

(d)demands, charges or receives from a debtor the interest at higher rate in contravention of sub-section (3) of section 33; or(e)accepts any promissory note, acknowledgement bond or other writing or document or any instrument in contravention of section 38; or

(f)tempers with debtors' record or transaction or makes a wrongful or false entry therein or tempers or mutilates or destroys pawn or property -

shall on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to twenty-five thousand rupees."

11) If the contents of the FIR are perused, the complainant states

that due to business requirements, he borrowed an amount of

Rs.1,00,00,000/- from accused Dineshbhai Parmar on different

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/8857/2026 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026

undefined

occasions between 2021 and 2023 at 2% monthly interest and paid

interest amounting to Rs.45,20,000/-. Thereafter, despite

repayment of Rs.60,00,000/- through Angadia and further

payment of Rs.10,00,000/- in cash, the accused continued to

harass and pressurize the complainant for more money. Further, in

the absence of the complainant, his brother and brother-in-law

were compelled to execute a promissory note of Rs.34,00,000/-

and sign blank papers. The respondent No. 2 - complainant has

now filed his affidavit stating that settlement has been arrived at

between the parties an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakh

only) has been paid to the applicant on 10/04/2026 and no

grievance exists between the parties and the matter is settled

between them and the neighbors and elders of the society have

intervened and as they are residents of the same area having

common relatives and friends and they have decided to resolve the

dispute. The issue does not pertain to any offense of involving

mental depravity or serious offense such as murder, rape or

dacoity and in view of the settled proposition of law, in the case of

Parbatbhai Ahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinbhai Karmur(supra), this

Court deems this case fit for quashing as the parties have settled

the dispute. Moreover, in view of the settlement arrived at between

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/8857/2026 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026

undefined

the parties, continuation of the proceeding would serve no useful

purpose and the matter deserves to be brought to an end by

exercising inherent jurisdiction. Accordingly, the present petition

is allowed.

12) Resultantly, this application is allowed and the impugned

F.I.R. bearing C.R.No.11196030260173 of 2026 registered

with Sayajiganj Police Station, Vadodara City, filed against

present applicant is hereby quashed and set aside and all other

proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR are also quashed and

set aside. Direct service permitted.

(S. V. PINTO,J)

VISHAL MISHRA