IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 12630 of

2025 ==============================================

PANKAJBHAI CHANDUBHAI DHOLAKIYA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

==============================================

Appearance:

MR MUNJAL V ACHARYA(10678) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR KRUTIK PARIKH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==============================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 15/09/2025

ORAL ORDER

[1.0] By way of present quashing petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 the petitioner has sought quashing of the FIR No.11198006250672 of 2025 registered with Ghogha Road Police Station, Bhavnagar for the offences punishable under Section 75(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Sections 8, 10 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

[2.0] Present is a petition filed on the ground of settlement between the parties.

[3.0] At the outset, it is worth to mention that present petitioner is facing charge under Section 75(1) of the BNS as well as under the POCSO Act. Said offences alleged against the petitioner are serious one and against the State and not against a person. The accused is aged 38 years and the victim is aged 8 years. The victim was returning from her school in the rickshaw of the accused and in the midway the accused committed the offences alleged against the petitioner.

[4.0] Be that as it may, though the present petition is filed on the ground of settlement between the parties, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition on the ground of settlement as the offence is non-

compoundable.

[5.0] This Court is conscious of the fact that in non-compoundable offences also, powers under Section 482 of the CrPC (section 528 of the BNSS) can be exercised. Further, when the case is concerning non- compoundable offences against the State and as the learned APP has vehemently argued that while exercising powers under Section 482 of the CrPC (section 528 of the BNSS), the Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime besides observing and holding that heinous and serious offences could not be quashed even though a victim or victim’s family and the offender had settled the dispute as such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on the society. The word “crime” has been defined as “the breach and violation of public rights and duties which affect the whole community”. In such circumstances, a crime is an act deemed by law to be harmful to the society. Herein, the petitioner have taken undue advantage of their liberty and have tried to tamper with the evidence. Even, in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to observe and hold as under in paragraphs 48, 57, 58 and 61:

“48. While parting with this part, it appears necessary to add that the settlement or compromise must satisfy the conscience of the court. The settlement must be just and fair besides being free from the undue pressure, the court must examine the cases of weaker and vulnerable victims with necessary caution.

57. Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence.

They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to a court under Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as to whether the en