Serious non-compoundable offences like robbery cannot be quashed based solely on settlements, as they affect public interest and must be adjudicated in the interests of justice.

ORDER :

HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.

[1.0] By way of present successive quashing petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the BNSS , the petitioners have sought quashing of the impugned FIR being I-CR No.20 of 2015 registered with Sutrapada Police Station, District Gir Somnath for the offences punishable under Sections 395 , 452, 323, 540 and 506(2) of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short “IPC”).

[2.0] Heard learned advocate for the petitioners and learned APP for respondent No.1 – State of Gujarat.

[3.0] Learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that settlement has taken place between the parties and now, no purpose would be served in continuing with such proceedings and hence, has sought quashing of the proceedings on the ground of settlement. Further, the petitioners and complainant belong to same village and all are like friends and knowing each other since many years and even the complainant has supported the present petition by way of filing an affidavit. Further, as the complainant and petitioners have arrived at an amicable settlement, continuation of proceedings against the present petitioners would be nothing but rigmarole of trial and therefore, he has requested to consider the affidavit filed by respondent No.2 – original complainant. Hence, he has requested to allow the present petition and quash and set aside the impugned proceedings.

[4.0] Learned APP has vehemently opposed the present petition on the ground that present is a successive petition for quashing of the impugned FIR without there being no change in circumstances after disposal of Special Criminal Application No.1624/2015 vide order dated 03.04.2025. In the present case, offences alleged are punishable with Sections 395 , 452, 323, 540 and 506(2) of the IPC and in earlier round of litigation, the petition being SCR.A No.1625/2015 was argued on merits and prior to that the petitioners had obtained interim relief in their favor and they succeeded to prolong the matter and therefore, the State had preferred an application being CR.MA No.1 of 2019 in SCR.A No.1624/2015 seeking vacation of interim relief / stay and on 03.04.2025, when the coordinate Bench was not inclined to entertain the petition, same was permitted to be withdrawn and resultantly the application seeking vacation of interim relief also stood disposed of. Further, the charge-sheet is already filed and petitioners are having past antecedents. Considering the seriousness of offence and the fact that present petition on the ground of settlement is filed for quashing of FIR concerning non-compoundable offences, she has requested to dismiss the present petition.

[4.1] Even on merits also, she has submitted that the accused persons keeping grudge against the complainant as he had given information with regard to selling of contraband liquor by the present petitioners in Babool bushes, intelligence raid was conducted and keeping grudge and suspicion the present petitioners trespassed into the shop of the complainant and committed the offence of dacoity and robbed Rs.10,000/- and mobile phone of the complainant. Further, after investigation, sufficient material has been collected and sufficient evidence is there which suggests involvement of the present petitioners. Merely because complainant has given consent and has settled the dispute with the petitioners – accused is not a ground to allow the present petition for quashing of impugned proceeding on the ground of settlement. Present petitioners are specifically named in the FIR and hence, question of identity is also not in dispute. Further, offences are not against a person but against the society as very serious allegations of non-compoundable offences are leveled. Hence, she has requested to dismiss the present petition.

[5.0] Before discussing legal submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, it would be appropriate to refer to the facts in brief of the case on hand.

[5.1] On the date of offence