Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 18681
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
M. K. Thakker, J
Maheshbhai Morarjibhai Thakkar (Kakkad) – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONSENT QUASHING) NO. 20181 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Pravin Gondaliya
For the Respondents: Jay Mehta, Anand Thakkar
In cases of property-related criminal disputes, where parties have reached an amicable settlement, the court may exercise its powers to quash pending criminal proceedings to prevent the abuse of the judicial process and unnecessary harassment, as continuing the trial would be a futile exercise.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 406, 420, 506(2) and 114 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Criminal Jurisprudence - Settlement of dispute - Where a criminal complaint arises from a land-related dispute and the parties have amicably resolved the matter, the continuation of criminal proceedings constitutes an abuse of the process of law. Such trial becomes a futile exercise and causes unnecessary harassment to the parties involved. In the interest of justice, courts have the power to quash the criminal proceedings if satisfied that the settlement is voluntary and that no further dispute exists between the complainant and the accused. (Paras 3, 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
A criminal complaint was initiated regarding a dispute over the exchange of property. Subsequent to the filing of charges, the parties involved reached an amicable settlement mediated by family members and acquaintances. The complainant filed an affidavit expressing no objection to the proceedings being quashed, confirming that the discord had been entirely resolved.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the allegations arose from a civil-natured dispute regarding property. Given that the parties had resolved the issue and the complainant did not wish to pursue the legal action, the court found that any further trial would result in the misuse of judicial time and cause undue prejudice to the parties.
Issues: The main issue addressed was whether the court should exercise its inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings in a case involving property-related offences where an amicable settlement had been reached between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that the primary objective of the judicial process is to deliver justice. When the parties have mutually resolved their differences and the underlying dispute is private in nature, allowing a criminal trial to continue serves no constructive purpose. Therefore, quashing the proceedings is justified to secure the ends of justice and prevent the wastage of judicial resources.
Result: Application allowed; FIR and all consequential proceedings quashed and set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural compliance for quashing criminal proceedings initiated by fir. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. parties' consensus and settlement regarding the underlying dispute warranting court consideration. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. settlement of private disputes facilitates quashing fir to prevent abuse of process. (Para 7) |
| 4. formal court order quashing criminal proceedings based on settlement. (Para 8) |
ORAL ORDER
Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP Mr. Mehta and learned advocate Mr. Anand Thakkar waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respective parties.
1. Learned advocate Mr. Anand Thakkar states that he appears for Respondent No.2 – the original complainant. He is permitted to file his appearance.
2. The present application is filed for quashment of the FIR No. 1- C. R. No.64 of 2015 registered with Deesa City South Police Station, Banastantha for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 506(2) and 114 of IPC.
3. It is submitted by the learned advocate Mr. Thakkar for the applicant that as per the allegations made in the FIR, dispute with regard to inter-changing of the land where after handing over the land of the complainant, the applicant did not hand over his land. It is further submitted that during the pendency of the proceedings, dispute is resolved between the parties and the complainant and applicant have decided to quash FIR.
4. This submission is supported by learned advocate Mr. Thakkar appearing for respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 is present before this Court and is identified by learned advocate Mr. Thakkar appearing for respondent No. 2.
5. Learned APP Mr. Mehta appearing for the State has opposed the present application and submitted that considering the seriousness of the offence, the complaint in question may not be quashed and the present application may be rejected.
6. An affidavit of respondent No.2 has been filed at page No.24 which reads as under:
“I,…………., having address at …………., respondent no.2 herein original complainant in the F.I.R. being I C.R. No. 64 / 2015 registered before Deesa South Police Station, do hereby state on oath as under: -
That due to the intervention of the respected members of the society, family friends and the elderly people of the family whole dispute is amicably settled with the applicant, and there is now no dispute remained between us. I further say that there is no dispute of whatsoever nature between the parties.
That the accused person has filed quashing petition before this Hon'ble Court on the ground of settlement.
That since the dispute is settled between us. I have no objection if the said F.I.R. being I - C. R. No. 64/2015 registered before Deesa City South Police Station, Charge Sheet being No.09 of 2016 along with Criminal Case No.319 of 2016 pending before 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Deesa and all the proceedings thereto are quashed and set aside without entering into the merits of the case”
7. Considering the allegations made in the FIR and affidavit filed by the complainant as well as the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab , reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582, Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 31, Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Ors., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 190 and Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in 2014 (2) Crime 67 (SC) as well as State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604, it appears that continuing further with the criminal proceedings in relation to the impugned FIR and the Criminal Case against the applicants-accused would be an unnecessary harassment to the applicants-accused. It further appears that the trial would be a futile exercise and further continuing with the criminal proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR and the Criminal Case would amount to abuse of process
