The High Court may exercise its inherent power to quash criminal proceedings when parties reach a voluntary amicable settlement, provided there is no abuse of process, thereby serving the ends of justice and preventing unnecessary legal futility.

ORAL ORDER

1. Learned advocate Ms.Mamta S. Rajput states she has instructions to appear on behalf of the complainant and therefore, she seeks permission to file his Vakalatnama. Registry to accept same.

2. Heard, learned advocates for the respective parties.

3. Rule. The learned advocates for the respective respondents waive service.

4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and since it is jointly stated at bar by the learned advocates for the respective parties that the dispute between the parties has been resolved amicably, this matter is taken up for final disposal forthwith.

5. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) [ Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Samhita, 2023 ‘BNSS’], the applicant has prayed to quash and set aside the FIR being No.11196003250709 of 2025, registered with Manjalpur Police Station, Vadodara for the offences punisable under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 115(2) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and to quash all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

6. The 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 de facto complainant has also filed an Affidavit, which is on record. In the Affidavit, the de facto complainant, has categorically stated that the dispute with the applicant – original accused no.3 has been resolved amicably and he has no objection if the criminal proceedings are quashed and set aside qua original accused no.3 since there is no surviving grievance between them.

6.1 The complainant is virtually present before the Court through online, today. When questioned, the complainant has unequivocally stated that he has entered into compromise with the original accused no.3 – present applicant and has amicably settled the dispute and that, he has no objection if the Court quashes the FIR that is registered qua the present applicant. The complainant has also stated that the affidavit is not filed by him under any undue pressure, threat, coercion or fear.

7. It is apt here to consider whether the power conferred by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is warranted. It is true that the powers under Section 482 of CrPC are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest Court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage as held by the Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ravi Shankar Srivastava, IAS & Anr., reported in AIR 2006 SC 2872.

8. Having heard learned advocates on both the sides and considering the facts and circumstances of the case so also the role attributed to the present applicant – original accused no.3 to the effect that he, under the pretext of obtaining loan, has taken Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only)