Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 18683
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
M. K. Thakker, J
Ankit Jagdishbhai Sidpara – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONSENT QUASHING) NO. 4156 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Dipesh D Soni
For the Respondents: Jay Mehta, Janak Parmar
Criminal proceedings predicated upon private disputes may be quashed where the parties have reached a voluntary compromise and the complainant confirms receiving settlement, as continuing such litigation serves as an abuse of the court's process and constitutes a futile exercise.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of First Information Report - Settlement between parties - Exercise of inherent powers - Where the dispute is private in nature and the parties have arrived at a compromise, continuing criminal proceedings becomes a futile exercise and amounts to an abuse of the process of law - Courts are empowered to quash criminal proceedings to secure the ends of justice when the complainant has reached a full and final settlement. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The application for quashing of the criminal complaint was filed following the resolution of the underlying dispute. The complainant acknowledged the receipt of the full and final settlement amount and filed an affidavit stating there were no further grievances against the accused, explicitly requesting the closure of the criminal proceedings.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the dispute between the parties had been resolved, with the complainant having received the entire settlement amount. Given that the conflict was primarily private in nature and the complainant expressed no objection, the court concluded that proceeding with a criminal trial would be a futile exercise and an abuse of the legal system.
Issues: Whether criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offenses can be quashed based on a voluntary settlement between private parties to prevent the abuse of the process of law.
Ratio Decidendi: When parties have entered into a voluntary compromise and the underlying matter is a private dispute, the court may exercise its inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings to prevent unnecessary harassment and ensure that the process of law is not misused when a resolution has been attained outside of the courtroom.
Result: Application allowed; the criminal proceedings are quashed and set aside qua the second applicant.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural management of multiple applicants and legal representation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. factual basis of the dispute and formal acknowledgment of settlement. (Para 4 , 8) |
| 3. contending arguments regarding the quashing of criminal proceedings. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. quashing criminal proceedings where parties have reached an amicable settlement. (Para 9 , 10) |
ORAL ORDER
Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP Mr. Mehta and learned advocate Mr. Janak Parmar waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respective parties.
1. Learned advocate Mr. Soni does not press this application qua the applicant No.1 i.e. accused No.1. Hence, the present application stands disposed of as not pressed qua applicant No.1. Rule is discharged qua applicant No.1.
2. Learned advocate Mr. Janak Parmar states that he appears for Respondent No.2 – the original complainant. He is permitted to file his appearance.
3. So far as applicant No.2 is concerned, this matter is taken up for final disposal only qua applicant No.2
4. The present application is filed for quashment of the FIR being CR No.11210012240694 of 2024 registered with Chowkbazar Police Station, Surat City for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120-B of the IPC.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Soni for the applicant submits that, during the pendency of the proceedings, the dispute has been resolved between the parties and the complainant has given no objection if the impugned FIR is quashed.
6. This submission is supported by learned advocate Mr. Parmar appearing for respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 is present before this Court through Video Conference and is identified by learned advocate Mr. Parmar appearing for respondent No. 2.
7. 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.
8. An affidavit of respondent No. 2 has been filed and is taken on record, which reads as under:
“I……….., Residing at:…………. the complainant herein, do hereby affirm and state on solemn affirmation that:
A. I have previously filed an affidavit in support of the present petition in relation to the complaint registered F.I.R. dated 18/05/2024 bearing CR. No. 11210012240694 of 2024 with the Chowkbazar Police Station, Surat City under sections 420 and 120-B of the IPC at Annexure- 'A' qua the applicants herein.
B.That in paragraph 'D' of my earlier affidavit, I had stated that it was agreed between the parties that the applicants will further pay a sum of Rs. 10 lacs to the complainant, subject to the quashment of the impugned F.I.R. by this Hon'ble Court.
C. The deponent hereby states and brings on record that during the pendency of the captioned application, the applicants have already paid the aforementioned remaining amount of Rs. 10 lacs in cash in parts to the deponent.
D. Therefore, the deponent acknowledges receipt of the full and final settlement amount, and now absolutely nothing remains to be paid by the applicants to the deponent in respect of the said offence.
E. That since the entire settlement amount has been received and there are no further grievances against the applicants herein, the deponent reiterates that he does not want to proceed further with the present F.I.R. dated 18/05/2024 bearing CR. No. 11210012240694 of 2024 with the Chowkbazar Police Station, Surat City qua Mr. Ankit @ Mukeshbhai @ Mayankbhai Jagdishbhai Sidpara and Ms. Aartiben Jitubhai Radadiya. The deponent has no objections if the same is quashed as the trial would be a futile exercise.
That the deponent has read over the contents of the affidavit and further depose that he is conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and is therefore, competent to depose that the statement of facts and rest of the statements are true to his information and belief and as such believes the same to be true and correct.”
