[Cites 19, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Hathisinh Agarsinh Barad @ Hako ... vs State Of Gujarat on 6 May, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/22575/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONSENT QUASHING) NO.
22575 of 2025
========================================================
HATHISINH AGARSINH BARAD @ HAKO RAJDHANI & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
========================================================
Appearance:
DINESH M DESAI(9086) 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 returnable forthwith. Learned APP Mr.Aditya
Jadeja and learned advocate Mr.Ankit Dixit 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 No.11191015211324 registered
with Nikol Police Station, Ahmedabad City for the offences
under Sections 306, 384, 387 and 114 etc. of Indian Penal Code,
u/s. 5, 33(3) and 42 etc. of the Money Lenders Act and all the
consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/22575/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026
undefined
4. Heard learned advocate Mr.Dinesh M. Desai for the
applicants, learned APP Mr. Aditya Jadeja for the respondent
no.1 - State and learned advocate Mr. Ankit Dixit for the
respondent no.2 - original complainant.
5. Learned advocate Mr.Dinesh M. Desai for the
applicant and learned advocate Mr. Ankit Dixit for the
respondent no.2 - original complainant jointly submit that the
impugned FIR qua the co-accused have been quashed and set
aside by this Court vide order dated 01.04.2026 passed in
Special Criminal Application (Quashing) No. 13880 of 2023,
order dated 27.04.2026 passed in Special Criminal Application
(Quashing) Nos. 12896 of 2023 and 9652 of 2023. Learned
advocates further submit 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 arrived
due to intervention of trusted pending people of the society and
well-wishers of the both the sides and, therefore, the
respondent no.2 has no objection if the impugned FIR as well as
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/22575/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026
undefined
all the other consequential proceedings arising pursuant thereto
are quashed against the applicants - accused.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Ankit Dixit for the respondent
no.2 - original complainant submits that the respondent no.2 -
original complainant is present before this Court and produced
her affidavit stating that the dispute between the parties is
amicably settled and she has no objection if the impugned FIR
and consequential proceedings are quashed The affidavit filed
by the respondent no.2 - original complainant is taken on
record.
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:
1. I, Kamaliya Sarojben Bhupendrabhai Age:
41 years, Female, Hindu, Occupation:
Household, Residing at: B-45, Gitapark,
Narayannagar, Part 1, Khodiyarnagar,
Ahmedabad herein the respondent no.2 do
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/22575/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026
undefined
hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as
under:
2. That I have read the contents of the
application and documents appended with
the application. I am well conversant with
the facts of the case and being the
respondent no.2 herein (original
complainant), I am fully competent to file
this affidavit in reply for settlement.
3. I say and submit that whatever contents,
averments made in the petition by the
petitioner is hereby not admitted. However
merits of the petition are not of much
importance because a
compromise/settlement has been arrived
between us i.e. petitioners and respondent
no.2.
4. It is necessary to states that the petitioners
and myself were acquaintances. However
due to suicide committed by my husband,
the FIR was registered by me in the heat of
the moment. The elder members of our
community sat together and made me
understand the thing which happened in
the heat of the moment.
5. I hereby also declare that this affidavit as
well as settlement has been without any
pressure, threat, coercion and purely out of
love/respect of our families.
6. I therefore, declare and solemnly affirm
that I have no objection if the petition is
allowed as prayed by the petitioners. I also
have no objection if the FIR registered at
CR.No.11191015211324/2021dt.27/08/2021
at Nikol Police Station, Ahmedabad, against
the applicant for offences punishable under
section 306, 384, 387 & 114 of Indian Penal
Code 1860 and under section 5, 33(3) and
42 of Gujarat Money Lender Act 2011 as
well as SC No. 1086 of 2024 pending before
the Ld. City Civil and Sessions Court,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/22575/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026
undefined
Ahmedabad and the resultant proceedings
are quashed and set aside.
7. The contents of paragraphs 1 to 7 of this
affidavit are read over to me and explained
to me in Guajarati and the same are true
and correct to the best of my knowledge
and belief..
9. 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:
(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,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/22575/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026
undefined
(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;
(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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/22575/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026
undefined
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."
10. 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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/22575/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026
undefined
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."
11. 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
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 without any
pressure, threat, coercion and further continuation of criminal
proceedings in relation to the impugned FIR against the
applicants would be unnecessary harassment to the applicants.
It appears that the trial would be futile and further continuance
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/22575/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026
undefined
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.
12. 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
useful purpose, this Court is satisfied that the matter deserves to
be brought to an end by exercising inherent jurisdiction.
13. Accordingly, the present application is allowed.
14. The impugned FIR No.11191015211324 registered
with Nikol Police Station, Ahmedabad City as well as all
consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof are
hereby quashed and set aside qua the applicants.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/22575/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026
undefined
15. Connected application/s, if any, stand/s disposed of.
16. Rule made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(S. V. PINTO,J)
F.S.KAZI
