KARTIKEYA VENOD SHARMA @ KARTIK SHARMAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     R/CR.MA/10794/2019                          ORDER DATED: 14/08/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

     R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
                   FIR/ORDER) NO. 10794 of 2019

==========================================================
               KARTIKEYA VENOD SHARMA @ KARTIK SHARMA
                                Versus
                       STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RH RUPARELIYA(6212) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS.NEHA R RUPARELIYA(6361) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR PAVAN S GODIAWALA(2936) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR YUVRAJ BRAHMBHATT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

                            Date : 14/08/2026

                             ORAL ORDER


1.      Heard, learned advocates for the respective parties.


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


3.      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.


4.      By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), the applicant has prayed to quash and set
aside the FIR being CR No.I-45/2019 dated 01.05.2019, registered
with Satellite Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offences punisable


                                Page 1 of 4
     R/CR.MA/10794/2019                          ORDER DATED: 14/08/2026




under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC and to quash all other
consequential proceedings arising therefrom.


5.      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 taken
on record.          In the Affidavit, the de facto complainant has
categorically stated that the dispute with the applicant has been
resolved amicably and he has no objection if the criminal
proceedings are quashed and set aside since there is no surviving
grievance between them.


6.      The de facto complainant is present Online before the Court
today. When questioned, the complainant has unequivocally
stated that he has entered into compromise with the accused and
they have amicably settled the dispute and that, he has no
objection to quash the FIR that is registered against the applicant.


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


                                 Page 2 of 4
     R/CR.MA/10794/2019                        ORDER DATED: 14/08/2026




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 as also the
principles 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) Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs.
State of Punjab & Anr. reported in 2014 (2) Crime 67 (SC) as also
considering the fact that the dispute between the parties is
resolved amicably and complainant has no objection if the FIR is
quashed, in the opinion of this Court, the continuation of criminal
proceedings against the present applicant would be an exercise in
futility and abuse of process of law. Hence, to secure the ends of


                              Page 3 of 4
       R/CR.MA/10794/2019                                                      ORDER DATED: 14/08/2026




 justice, it would be appropriate to quash and set aside the
 impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings initiated in
 pursuance thereof.


 9.        In fine, the application is allowed. The impugned FIR, as
 referred to herein above, as well as all consequential proceedings
 initiated in pursuance thereof, are hereby quashed and set aside
 qua the applicant herein.


 9.2       Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service
 is permitted.



                                                                                       (P. M. RAVAL, J)
 MOHD SAIF ULLAH




Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372), ENGLISH STENO GRADE-II\, at High Court of Gujarat on 14/08/2026 14:20:15




                                                   Page 4 of 4