VIKRAM ALIAS PINTU S/O RANCHHODBHAI PRABHATBHAI DESAIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     R/CR.MA/16894/2026                            ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

     R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
                   FIR/ORDER) NO. 16894 of 2026

==========================================================
             VIKRAM ALIAS PINTU S/O RANCHHODBHAI RABARI
                                 Versus
                       STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NK MAJMUDAR(430) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. ROHAN N MAJMUDAR(14000) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. YUVRAJ BRAHMBHATT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

                            Date : 30/07/2026

                              ORAL ORDER


1.      Draft amendment is allowed. Amendment to be carried out
forthwith.


2.      Learned advocate Mr. Dhruv Desai on behalf of learned
advocate Mr. Bhuvnesh Gahlot states that Mr. Gahlot has
instructions to appear on behalf of the de facto complainant and
seeks permission to file his Vakalatnama, which is granted.


3.      Heard, learned advocates for the respective parties.


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


5.      Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and since


                                 Page 1 of 5
     R/CR.MA/16894/2026                           ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026




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 FIR being CR No.I-11216025230265 of 2023,
registered with Santej Police Station, Gandhinagar, for the offences
punishable under Sections 386, 365, 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 135 of the Gujarat Police
Act and to quash all other consequential proceedings arising
therefrom.


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 de
facto complainant has also filed an Affidavit, which is taken on
record. In the Affidavit, the de facto complainant has categorically
stated at para 6 of the affidavit that the entire dispute leading to the
registration of the impugned FIR was purely a business dispute
involving certain monetary / commercial transactions between the
parties, and the said business dispute has now been amicably settled
and resolved between the complainant and the applicant. He further
stated that he has no objection if the criminal proceedings are
quashed and set aside since there is no surviving grievance between



                                Page 2 of 5
     R/CR.MA/16894/2026                             ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026




them.


8.      The de facto complainant is present 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.


9.      It is apt here to consider whether the power conferred by the
High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) is warranted. It is true that the powers under
Section 528 of 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



                                Page 3 of 5
      R/CR.MA/16894/2026                         ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026




Investigation v. Ravi Shankar Srivastava, IAS & Anr., reported in
AIR 2006 SC 2872.


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


11.      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.




                               Page 4 of 5
      R/CR.MA/16894/2026                                                                ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026




12.        If the applicant is in jail, the jail authority concerned is
directed to release the applicant forthwith, if not required in any
other case.


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

                                                                                                  (P. M. RAVAL, J)
NITIN MAKWANA

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: NITIN INDRAVADAN MAKWANA(HCW0110), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE ONE, at High Court of Gujarat on 30/07/2026 18:00:28




                                                        Page 5 of 5