High Court of Gujarat

JAYESHBHAI VINUBHAI CHAUDHARYversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

Disposal: 46-ANY OTHER MODE @ FH
Bench: P M RAVAL

Holding

The High Court held that the FIR and all consequential proceedings must be quashed and set aside.

Summary

The applicant, Jayeshbhai Vinubhai Chaudhary, filed a criminal miscellaneous application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking to quash FIR No. 11213010240399 registered for offences under Section 351(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Both parties had settled the dispute amicably, and the de facto complainant filed an affidavit stating no objection to the quashing of the FIR. The High Court examined the scope of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 528, referring to Supreme Court precedents on when such power may be exercised. Considering the settlement, the personal nature of the dispute, and the absence of any public interest, the Court held that continuing the criminal proceedings would be futile and an abuse of process. Consequently, the Court allowed the application and quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court can exercise its power under Section 528 BNSS to quash an FIR when the parties have reached an amicable settlement.
Whether the present case falls within the categories exempted from quashing as per Supreme Court jurisprudence.
Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings would constitute an abuse of the process of law.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023s. 528
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023s. 351(4)

Subjects

quash of FIRSection 528 BNSSamicable settlementabuse of processhigh court jurisdictioncriminal procedureBharatiya Nagarik Suraksha SanhitaBharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

Judgment

     R/CR.MA/12763/2026                          ORDER DATED: 10/06/2026




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD


R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET
         ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 12763 of 2026

================================================
          JAYESHBHAI VINUBHAI CHAUDHARY
                         Versus
               STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
================================================
Appearance:
MR MUNJAL V ACHARYA(10678) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
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 Ms. Chetna Joshi states that he has
instructions to appear on behalf of the de facto complainant and
seeks permission to file his Vakalatnama, which is granted.


2.      Heard, learned advocates for the respective parties.


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


4.      Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and since
it is jointly stated at bar by the learned advocates for the respective

                                Page 1 of 4
     R/CR.MA/12763/2026                          ORDER DATED: 10/06/2026




parties that the dispute between the parties has been resolved
amicably, this matter is taken up for final disposal forthwith.


5.      By this application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the applicant has prayed
to quash and set aside the FIR being CR No. 11213010240399 of
2024, registered with Dhoraji Police Station, Rajkot (Rural) for the
offences punisable under Sections 351(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and to quash all other consequential
proceedings arising therefrom.


6.      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 as was personal in nature and he has no objection if the
criminal proceedings are quashed and set aside since there is no
surviving grievance between them.


7.      The de facto 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.




                               Page 2 of 4
     R/CR.MA/12763/2026                          ORDER DATED: 10/06/2026




8.      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
powers 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.


9.      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.


                               Page 3 of 4
         R/CR.MA/12763/2026                                                             ORDER DATED: 10/06/2026




   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. 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 dispute appears to be personal in nature and the
   applicant, allegedly given threat on WhatsApp message etc.
   Hence, to secure the ends of justice, it would be appropriate to
   quash and set aside the impugned FIR and all consequential
   proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof.


   10.       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.


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


                                                                                              [ P. M. Raval, J. ]
   hiren/MKTJ30tss10626




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 17:06:21


                                                         Page 4 of 4

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "quash of FIR"Sign in to search