Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 5406
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J
SANJAY BALKRISHNA GAUR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (FOR CONSENT QUASHING) NO. 3125 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MR ISHAN H RAJDEV
For the Respondents: MR MAULIK H SAYANI, MS KRINA CALLA, APP
Quashing of criminal proceedings is warranted when the parties reach an amicable settlement, preventing unnecessary hardship.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) - Section 528 - Quashing of judgment and proceedings - Application filed under section 528 to quash criminal proceedings post amicable settlement - Principle laid down by the Supreme Court that continuation of proceedings would cause unnecessary harassment. (Paras 7, 9)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482 - High Court's power to quash FIR - High Court should exercise caution in quashing proceedings without sufficient material and full understanding of facts. (Paras 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
The applicant filed for quashing a complaint and conviction regarding a loan dispute, asserting amicable resolution between the parties with no remaining grievances.
Findings of Court:
The court found the mutual settlement between the parties warranted quashing the criminal proceedings to avoid unnecessary hardship.
Issues: Whether the power to quash under BNSS and Cr.P.C. is justified in light of an amicable settlement between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the amicable resolution negated the purpose of continued proceedings, affirming the need for justice without undue hardship.
Result: Application allowed, judgment quashed, and release orders initiated, subject to certain conditions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicability of bnss and caution in quashing. (Para 1) |
| 2. mutual settlement between parties allows for quashing of proceedings. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. parties have resolved their disputes amicably, negating the need for continued legal action. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. court emphasizes the need to avoid unnecessary harassment in mutual settlements. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. the exercise of quashing powers must be grounded in sound legal principles. (Para 8) |
ORAL ORDER
1. RULE. Learned advocates waive service of notice of rule on behalf of the respective respondents.
2. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and since it is jointly stated at the Bar by learned advocates on both the sides that the dispute between the parties has been resolved amicably, this matter is taken up for final disposal forthwith.
3. By way of this application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ( BNSS ), the applicant has prayed to quash and set aside the judgment dated 01.05.2024 passed by the learned 9th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot at Exhibit 20 in Criminal Case No.3443 of 2021 as well as all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
4. Learned advocate for the applicants submits that the applicants have nothing to do with the offence and they are falsely implicated in the offence. However, the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, and they have no objection if the complaint is quashed. Therefore, the application may be allowed.
5. 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 an Affidavit, which is taken / placed on record. In the Affidavit, the original complainant have categorically stated that the dispute with the applicant 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.
6. Having heard the learned advocates on both sides and considering the documents on record, it appears that respondent No. 2 had filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 25 of the Payments and Settlements Systems Act , 2007, which later culminated into Criminal Case No. 3443 of 2021. Respondent No. 2 filed the said complaint after the petitioner had availed a loan from the respondent-bank in the form of a credit card to the tune of Rs. 72,688/-, and the petitioner had opted for the CS facility, which meant that the said funds would be auto-debited from the petitioner’s account. However, the transaction was returned with the endorsement “Funds Insufficient,” upon which respondent No. 2 issued a notice.
Thereafter, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot found the petitioner guilty and convicted him under Section 25 of the said Act, sentencing him to six months of simple imprisonment and directing him to pay an amount of Rs. 72,688/- to respondent No. 2, failing which the petitioner would be liable to undergo a further period of one month of simple imprisonment. However, the matter has now been amicably settled between the parties, and the petitioner has agreed to pay a one-time settlement amount of Rs. 40,000/-. In this regard, the authorized officer of respondent No. 2 (HDFC Bank) has filed an affidavit stating that the matter has been settled and that the bank has received the agreed settlement amount. As the matter has now been amicably settled between the parties, no fruitful purpose would be served by proceeding further with the matter.
7. In view of 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 1
