High Court of Gujarat
NARESHBHAI JASHUBHAI MAKWANAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT
- Disposal
- 46-ANY OTHER MODE @ FH
- Bench
- P M RAVAL
Holding
The High Court held that, given the amicable settlement and absence of objection from the complainant’s heirs, the criminal proceedings must be quashed and set aside under Section 528 of the BNSS.
Summary
The applicants filed a miscellaneous application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quash of Criminal Cases Nos. 6307 of 2017 and 9971 of 2018 arising from FIR I‑144 of 2016 and charge‑sheets for offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201 and 114 of the IPC. The parties had settled the dispute amicably, and the heirs of the de facto complainant filed affidavits stating no objection to the quash. The Court examined the wide but cautious power under Section 528, referring to Supreme Court precedents on quashing jurisdiction. Finding that the matter was essentially civil, that continuation of the criminal prosecution would be futile and an abuse of process, and that none of the statutory exceptions applied, the Court allowed the application. Consequently, the criminal proceedings were quashed and set aside.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can exercise its power under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash criminal proceedings when the parties have reached an amicable settlement.
- Whether the settlement and lack of objection from the complainant’s heirs override the public interest in prosecuting offences under the listed IPC sections.
- Whether the present case falls within any of the exceptions to the quashing jurisdiction as laid down by the Supreme Court.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023s. 528
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 114, s. 201, s. 406, s. 420, s. 467, s. 468, s. 471
Subjects
quashing of criminal proceedingsSection 528 BNSSamicable settlementhigh court jurisdictionIPC offencesabuse of processcivil dispute in criminal case
Judgment
R/CR.MA/10903/2026 ORDER DATED: 10/06/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET
ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 10903 of 2026
================================================
NARESHBHAI JASHUBHAI MAKWANA & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
================================================
Appearance:
MR BHARAT T RAO(697) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR JAY MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
Date : 10/06/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. Learned advocate for the applicants has tendered the draft
amendment. The same is allowed in terms of the draft.
Amendment to be carried out forthwith.
2. Learned advocate Mr. H. B. Champavat states that he has
instructions to appear on behalf of the heirs of the de facto
complainant and seeks permission to file his Vakalatnama, which
is granted.
3. Heard, learned advocates for the respective parties.
Page 1 of 5
R/CR.MA/10903/2026 ORDER DATED: 10/06/2026
4. Rule. The learned advocates for the respective respondents
waive service.
5. 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.
6. By this application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the applicants have
prayed to quash and set aside the Criminal Case Nos. 6307 of 2017
and 9971 of 2018, arising from Charge-sheet Nos. 102 of 2017 and
81 of 2018 arising out of FIR being CR No. I-144 of 2016, registered
with Odhav Police Station, Ahmedabad City for the offences
punisable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201 and 114 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860.
7. 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
heirs of the de facto complainant have also filed Affidavits, which
are taken on record. In the Affidavits, they have categorically
stated that the dispute with the applicants has been resolved
amicably and they have no objection if the criminal proceedings
are quashed and set aside since there is no surviving grievance
between them.
Page 2 of 5
R/CR.MA/10903/2026 ORDER DATED: 10/06/2026
8. The heirs of the de facto complainant have unequivocally
stated that they have entered into compromise with the accused
and they have amicably settled the dispute and that, they have no
objection to quash the above stated criminal proceedings initiated
against the applicants.
9. It is apt here to consider whether the power conferred by the
High Court under Section 528 of the BNSS is warranted. It is true
that the powers under Section 528 of the BNSS 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.
Page 3 of 5
R/CR.MA/10903/2026 ORDER DATED: 10/06/2026
10. 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 heirs of the complainant have no objection
if the criminal proceedings in question are quashed, in the opinion
of this Court, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the
present applicants would be an exercise in futility and abuse of
process of law. Although, some cases are exempted which are
catelogued in the said judgment of the Apex Court, the present
case is not falling within the said exempted cases as the case
appears to be of civil in nature. Hence, to secure the ends of
justice, it would be appropriate to quash and set aside the
impugned criminal proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof.
11. In fine, the application is allowed. The impugned criminal
proceedings, as referred to herein above, are hereby quashed and
set aside qua the applicants herein.
Page 4 of 5
R/CR.MA/10903/2026 ORDER DATED: 10/06/2026
11.1 Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service
is permitted.
[ P. M. Raval, J. ]
hiren/MKTJ14tss10626
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: HIREN VIRENDRABHAI MER(HC00351), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 10/06/2026 17:04:54
Page 5 of 5
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "quashing of criminal proceedings"Sign in to search