IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (FOR CONSENT QUASHING) NO. 13851 of 2025 ============================================

KISHORE NARAYANDAS MAHERCHANDANI & ANR.

Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

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

Appearance:

JATIN V YADAV(8946) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2 MR TIRTHRAJ PANDYA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ============================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 14/10/2025

ORAL ORDER

1) Learned Advocate Mr. Mukundkumar A. Thakkar states that he has instructions to appear on behalf of the original complainant and thereby, seeks permission to file his Vakalatnama, which is granted.

2) RULE. Learned advocates waive service of note of rule on behalf of the respective respondents.

3) 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.

4) By way of this application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as “BNSS”), the petitioners have prayed to quash and set aside the complaint being FIR No.I-88/2019 registered with Mansa Police Station, Dist. Gandhinagar, for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

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 at Annexure-B 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.

Learned Advocate for the petitioners has further submitted that the impugned FIR was quashed against co-accused vide order dated 18.08.2025 in Special Criminal Application No.11398 of 2025 and order dated 09.09.2025 in Special Criminal Application No.12345 of 2025 passed by this Hon’ble Court. The said orders are annexed as Annexures – D and E, respectively.

6) 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), in the opinion of this Court, the further continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners in relation to the impugned FIR would cause unnecessary harassment to the petitioners. Further, the 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.

7) So far as offence under Section 420 of the IPC is concerned, it is appropriate to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rekha Jain vs. The State of Karnataka & Anr. reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 468, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, to make out a case against a person for the offence under Section 420 of IPC, there must be a dishonest inducement to deceive a person to deliver any property to any other person. Further, in the case of Sarabjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in (2023)5