2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 15735
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL K. VYAS
PRASHANTBHAI VASANTBHAI SHAHV/sSTATE OF GUJARAT
R/CR.MA/11284/2026
##PAGE1##
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11284/2026 ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026
0.7225696770905584
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONSENT QUASHING) NO.
11284 of 2026
==========================================================
PRASHANTBHAI VASANTBHAI SHAH
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HITESH L GUPTA(3937) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR NAYAN L GUPTA(11798) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR TIRTHRAJ PANDYA, LD. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL K. VYAS
Date : 08/05/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. Learned advocate Mr.Neel S. Jograna appears and
submits that he has instructions to appear on behalf of the
respondent no.2 – original complainant. He is permitted to
file his appearance. Registry shall accept his vakalatnama.
2. By way of preferring the present application under
Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023, the applicant- original accused seeks to invoke the
inherent powers of this Court, praying to quash and set-
aside the First Information Report being C.R. No.I- 52 of
2015 registered with Mahila Police Station, Ahmedabad for
the offences punishable under Sections 376, 406, 420,
498(A), 494 & 114 of the Indian Penal Code; the charge
sheet as well as the proceedings of the Sessions Case
No.397 of 2017 pending before the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad,
Page 1 of 6
Uploaded by DIPTI PATEL(HC00191) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 15 07:17:28 IST 2026
##PAGE2##NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11284/2026 ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026
0.7225696770905584
so also all other consequential proceedings arising pursuant
thereto.
3. Today, when the matter is called out, the original
complainant, who is personally present before this Court,
has produced her identity proof, which is ordered to be
taken on record. She has also filed an affidavit, which is
annexed as Annexure “D” to the application. In the affidavit,
the complainant has categorically stated that with the
intervention of the friends, family members and community
people, the dispute between her and the applicant- accused
has been amicably resolved and there is no ill-will or any
grievance amongst them. Therefore, she does not want to
proceed further with the criminal proceedings pursuant to
the impugned FIR, the charge-sheet and the Sessions Case
against the present applicant.
4. Considering the issue involved in the present
application as well as considering the fact that the dispute
has been amicably resolved between the parties, with the
consent of the learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties, the present application is taken up for
final disposal.
5. RULE returnable forthwith. Learned APP Mr.Tirthraj
Pandya waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of
the respondent no.1 – State and learned advocate Mr.Neel S.
Jograna waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of
Page 2 of 6
Uploaded by DIPTI PATEL(HC00191) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 15 07:17:28 IST 2026
##PAGE3##NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11284/2026 ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026
0.7225696770905584
the respondent no.2 – complainant.
6. Learned advocate for the applicant-accused has
submitted that since the dispute has been amicably
resolved between the parties, the application may be allowed
and the impugned FIR, the charge-sheet as well as the
proceedings of the Sessions Case may be quashed and set-
aside.
7. The original complainant, who is present in the Court,
has categorically stated before this Court that she has no
objection if the application is allowed and the impugned
FIR; the charge-sheet as well as the proceedings of the
Sessions Case are quashed and set-aside. Thus, it appears
from the aforesaid that sending the applicant-accused to
face the trial would be nothing but a futile exercise and
would amount to abuse of process of law.
8. The relevant paragraphs of the affidavit of the origi