SUMITRABEN RAMCHANDRA PRAJAPATIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     R/CR.MA/24456/2025                                  ORDER DATED: 29/01/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

     R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONSENT QUASHING) NO.
                           24456 of 2025

==========================================================
               SUMITRABEN RAMCHANDRA PRAJAPATI & ORS.
                                Versus
                       STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MIREN PRIYADARSHI(11023) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MS. ANITASALOMI B KAPADIA(14638) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR K.M.ANTANI, LD.ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL K. VYAS

                                 Date : 29/01/2026

                                     ORAL ORDER


1.      Learned           advocate   Ms.Ankita       Goswami    appears        and
submits that she has instructions to appear on behalf of the
respondent no.2 – complainant. Registry shall accept her
vakalatnama.

2.      By way of preferring the present application under
Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023,
the applicants- accused seek to invoke the inherent powers of
this Court, praying to quash and set-aside the First Information
Report being C.R.No.11191035250793 of 2025 registered with
the Naroda Police Station, Ahmedabad city, for the offences
punishable under Sections 115(2), 296(b) and 54 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under section 3(1)(r), 3(1)
(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989,                  as well as all other
consequential proceedings arising pursuant thereto.


                                       Page 1 of 5
     R/CR.MA/24456/2025                                 ORDER DATED: 29/01/2026




3.      Today, when the matter is called out, the complainant
and her husband, who are personally present before this Court,
have produced their identity proofs as well as the afÏdavits,
which are ordered to be taken on record. They have submitted
that they have not received any compensation from the
Government. In the said afÏdavits, they have categorically
stated that with the intervention of the friends, family
members and community people, the dispute has been
amicably resolved and there is no ill-will or any grievance
amongst them. Therefore, they do not want to proceed further
with the matter qua the present applicants.


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.K.M.Antani
waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the
respondent no.1 – State and learned advocate Ms.Ankita
Goswami waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of
the respondent no.2 – complainant.


6.      Learned           advocate   for    the    applicants-accused         has
submitted that since the dispute has been amicably resolved
between the parties, the application may be allowed and the
impugned FIR may be quashed and set-aside.


                                     Page 2 of 5
     R/CR.MA/24456/2025                        ORDER DATED: 29/01/2026




7.      The complainant and her husband, who are personally
present in the Court, have categorically stated before this
Court that they have no objection if the application is allowed
and the FIR is quashed and set-aside qua the applicants. Thus,
it appears from the aforesaid that sending the applicants-
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 afÏdavit of the original
complainant, read thus :


       “(1) THAT, I the original complainant and the
       applicants belongs to same society and being
       neighbours, therefore with the intervention of elderly
       members of the society, we have amicably settled the
       matter out of the court. Moreover, the accused person
       i.e. applicant has apologised to me, in public, therefore
       I have settled this matter, amicably.

       (2) THAT, I the undersigned do not have any objection,
       if this Hon'ble Court would quash and set aside the FIR
       being 1st C.R. No. 11191035250793 / 2025 lodged on
       30.09.2025, by Urmilaben Vijaybhai Rupala i.e.
       Respondent no.2, u/s. 115(2), 296(b) and 54 of the
       Bharatiya Nyaya Shanhita Act - 2023 and u/s. 3(1)(r),
       3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste and
       Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, at
       Naroda Police Station, Ahmedabad City.”


9.      The relevant paragraphs of the afÏdavit of the husband of
the original complainant, read thus :



                              Page 3 of 5
      R/CR.MA/24456/2025                           ORDER DATED: 29/01/2026




        “(1) THAT, I, being the husband of the original
        complainant and the applicants belongs to the same
        society and are neighbours; therefore, with the
        intervention of elderly members of the society, we
        have amicably settled the matter out of court.
        Moreover, the accused person, i.e. applicant, has
        apologised to me and my wife (orig. Complainant), in
        public, therefore I have settled this matter amicably.

        (2) THAT, I, the undersigned, do not have any
        objection, if this Hon'ble Court would quash and set
        aside the FIR being 1st C.R. No. 11191035250793 /
        2025 lodged on 30.09.2025, by Urmilaben Vijaybhai
        Rupala, i.e. Respondent no.2, u/s. 115(2), 296(b) and
        54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Shanhita Act - 2023 and u/s.
        3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste
        and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
        1989, at Naroda Police Station, Ahmedabad City.”


10.      Having       heard   learned    counsel   appearing       for   the
respective parties, as well as considering the facts and
circumstances arising out of the present application and also
taking into consideration the decisions rendered 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) and State of
Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604, it
appears that continuing further with the criminal proceedings


                                 Page 4 of 5
      R/CR.MA/24456/2025                                                            ORDER DATED: 29/01/2026




in relation to the impugned FIR 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 proceedings pursuant
to the impugned FIR as well as the criminal case would amount
to abuse of process of law. Hence, to secure the ends of
justice, the impugned FIR as well as all other consequential
proceedings arising pursuant thererto are required to be
quashed and set aside in exercise of the powers conferred
under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023.



11.       In the result, the application is allowed. The First
Information Report being                               C.R.No.11191035250793 of 2025
registered with the Naroda Police Station, Ahmedabad city, for
the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 296(b) and 54
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under section 3(1)
(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, as well as all other
consequential proceedings arising pursuant thereto are hereby
ordered to be quashed and set-aside qua the present
applicants only.


12.       Rule made absolute. Direct service is permitted.


                                                                                         (VIMAL K. VYAS, J)

DIPTI PATEL
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: DIPTIBEN PIYUSH PATEL(HC00191), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 02/02/2026 12:13:16




                                                      Page 5 of 5