SANDIP MAHESHBHAI OD & Ors. v. STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

“BNSS”), the petitioners have prayed to quash and set aside the FIR being CR No.11214031250790 of 2025 registered with Mahuva Police Station, Surat Rural for the offences punishable under Sections 304, 127(2), 115(2), 140(2), 352, 351(3), 54 and 3(5) of the R/SCR.A/9390/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/08/2025 Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023; and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “Atrocity Act”) and to quash all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom. [5.0.] Learned Advocate for the original-complainant has filed undertaking dated 01.08.2025 stating that he has not received any compensation under the benevolent scheme. [6.0] 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 Affidavit at Annexure – C, which is placed on record. In the Affidavit, the original complainant has categorically stated that the dispute with the petitioners 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. [7.0] Going through the FIR it appears that the FIR is filed at the instance of respondent No.2 which emanates from a private dispute pursuant to which the petitioners abused the caste of the complainant and given threat to the complainant. In this regard, impugned FIR came to be filed. [8.0] It is necessary to consider whether the power conferred by the High Court under section 482 of the CrPC 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, R/SCR.A/9390/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/08/2025 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 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. [9.0] 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 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) and State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal reported in (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335 as also considering the fact that impugned FIR is filed in connection with altercation that took place between the accused and the complainant. Now, settlement took place between the parties. Further, the complainant has filed an undertaking dated 01.08.2025, which is taken on record, undertaking therein that he has not received any compensation from Social Welfare Department from the government under the benevolent scheme and even in future he will not claim any such compensation and there is no bar to exercise power under Section 528 of the BNSS even in the case registered under the Special Act. Herein, the offence under the Atrocities Act is invoked only on the basis of insult caused to the caste of the complainant and except that there is no any allegation against R/SCR.A/9390/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/08/2025 the present petitioners and hence, in the opinion of this Court, the further continuation of criminal proceedings against the present petitioners in relation to the impugned FIR would cause unnecessary harassment to the petitioners and 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 subject to condition that the complainant shall not claim any compensation under the benevolent government scheme. [10.0] In the result, petition is allowed. The impugned FIR being CR No.11214031250790 of 2025 registered with Mahuva Police Station, Surat Rural as well as all consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof are hereby quashed and set aside qua the petitioners herein. If the petitioners are in jail, the jail authority concerned is directed to release the petitioner forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent only. Direct service is permitted. ANKIT Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)