SHANKARBHAI VARSANGBHAI NADODA vs STATE OF GUJARAT

R/SCR.A/13705/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2026
(GJHC240709282026)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 13705 of 2026
==========================================================
SHANKARBHAI VARSANGBHAI NADODA & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ABHISHEK KHUMAN for MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Petitioners
MS DHWANI TRIPATHI, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

Date : 03/11/2026

JUDGMENT
1. Learned advocate Mr. Mahavir Jebaliya states at bar that
he has instructions to appear for the respondent complainant
and he shall file Vakalatnama in due course. Registry to
accept the same.
2. Rule . Learned APP waives service of rule for the
respondent State and learned advocate Mr. Mahavir Jebaliya
waives for the respondent complainant.
3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and
since it is jointly stated at the bar by learned advocates on
both the sides that the dispute between the parties has been
resolved amicably , this matter is taken up for final disposal
forthwith.
Page 1 of 8
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 04 18:42:38 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/13705/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2026
(GJHC240709282026)
4. By way of this application under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner haS
prayed to quash and set aside the FIR being C.R.No.I - 72 of
2003 registered with Sami Police Station for the offences
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 323, 504, 506(2) of the
IPC, u/s 135 of the BP Act and all the consequential
proceedings arising therefrom.
5. Necessary facts giving rise to filing of the present
application are stated to be as under:
5.1 That on 30.9.2003 at around 8 o'clock, keeping grudge
of the earlier dispute pertaining to way to field, the accused in
connivance with each other formed unlawful assembly with
deadly weapon and attacked upon the complainant's side,
accordingly complaint filed before Sami Police station as CR.
NO.I- 72 of 2003.
5.2 Pursuant to the registration of the FIR, police carried
out the investigation and on completion of the same, filed the
charge-sheet, which was registered as Criminal Case No. 148
of 2017. Since, the accused persons-petitioners herein did not
plead guilty, the trial Court proceeded to record the evidence.
On completion of the trial, the trial Court passed the
impugned judgment and order dated 20.11.2024 and
convicted the petitioners accused for the offence punishable
u/s 147, 148, 324, 323, 504, 506(2) of the IPC, u/s 135 of the
BP Act and sentenced for one year SI.
Page 2 of 8
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 04 18:42:38 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/13705/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2026
(GJHC240709282026)
5.3 Being aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence
passed by the trial Court, the Petitioners preferred Criminal
Appeal No.186 of 2024 before the learned Sessions Court,
Patan, wherein, the learned Appellate Court was pleased to
suspend the sentence awarded by the learned trial Court
pending the appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the
Petitioners have filed the present application for quashing of
impugned FIR, charge-sheet and order of conviction mainly on
the ground that the dispute in question which is purely
personal in nature, has been amicably settled between the
parties and now, continuation of impugned criminal
proceedings amounts to sheer abuse of process of law.
5.4 In the aforesaid facts, the Petitioners have prayed for
quashing and setting aside the impugned FIR and
consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR
and the order of conviction.
6. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
7. Learned advocate for the Petitioners would submit that
the dispute has been resolved by way of amicable settlement
with the involvement of well-wishers of both the sides. He
would further submits that the respondent no.2 has agreed to
give consent for quashing of impugned criminal proceedings
and he does not want to prosecute the impugned criminal
proceedings and considering the nature of dispute no public
Page 3 of 8
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 04 18:42:38 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/13705/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2026
(GJHC240709282026)
policy is involved in the case. Strong reliance has been placed
on the decision in case of Ramgopal Versus State of
Madhya Pradesh reported in 2021 (0) AIJEL-SC 67811 to
submit that having regard to the nature of offence and the
fact that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and
the complainant has willingly consented to the nullification of
criminal proceedings, the High Court can quash such
proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section
482 of the Code, even if the offences are non-compoundable.
8. Learned advocate for the respondent no.2 reiterating the
facts of settlement affidavit would submits that the
respondent no.2 do not wish to prosecute the Petitioners as
the impugned FIR was lodged out of misunderstanding,
misconception, desperation, anger and anxiety.
9. Learned APP has vehemently opposed the application
mainly on the ground that once conviction is awarded by the
trial Court and when appeal is pending before the Appellate
Court, the power cannot be exercised under Section 482 of
the Code by this Court.
10. Before adverting to the issue raised in the application,
let examine the scope of powers exercisable by the High Court
under Section 482 of the Code. In case of Gian Singh Vs.
State of Punjab reported in 2012 10 SCC 303 , a three
Judge Bench of the Apex Court held in paragraph-61 as under:
Page 4 of 8
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 04 18:42:38 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/13705/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2026
(GJHC240709282026)
“61.the power of the High Court in quashing a
criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of
its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from
the power given to a criminal court for compounding
the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent
power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation
but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline
engrafted in suchpower viz; (i) to secure the ends of
justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any
Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal
proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised
where the offender and victim have settled their
dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances
of each case and no category can be prescribed.
However, before exercise of such power, the High
Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity
of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental
depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc.
cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or
victim’s family and the offender have settled the
dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and
have serious impact on society. Similarly, any
compromise between the victim and offender in
relation to the offences under special statutes like
Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences
committed by public servants while working in that
capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for
quashing criminal proceedings involving such
offences. But the criminal cases having
overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour
stand on different footing for the purposes of
quashing, particularly the offences arising from
commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or
such like transactions or the offences arising out of
matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family
disputes where the wrong is basically private or
personal in nature and the parties have resolved their
entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court
may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because
of the compromise between the offender and victim,
the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and
continuation of criminal case would put accused to
great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice
Page 5 of 8
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 04 18:42:38 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/13705/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2026
(GJHC240709282026)
would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal
case despite full and complete settlement and
compromise with the victim. In other words, the High
Court must consider whether it would be unfair or
contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the
criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal
proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of
law despite settlement and compromise between the
victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends
of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to
an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in
affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its
jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.”
11. In case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi
Narayan & Ors. reported in 2019 5 SCC 688 , it was held
that:
“10(1) That the power conferred under Section 482 of
the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the
non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the
Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and
predominantly the civil character, particularly those
arising out of commercial transactions or arising out
of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and
when the parties have resolved the entire dispute
amongst themselves;
(2) Such power is not to be exercised
in those prosecutions which involved heinous
and serious offences of mental depravity or offences
like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not
private in nature and have a serious impact on
society;
(3) Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the
offences under the special statutes like the Prevention
of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public
servants while working in that capacity are not to be
quashed merely on the basis of compromise between
the victim and the offender;
Page 6 of 8
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 04 18:42:38 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/13705/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2026
(GJHC240709282026)
(4) xxx xxx xxx
(5) While exercising the power under Section 482 of
the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect
of non-compoundable offences, which are private in
nature and do not have a serious impact on society, on
the ground that there is a settlement/compromise
between the victim and the offender, the High Court is
required to consider the antecedents of the accused;
the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the
accused was absconding and why he was absconding,
how he had managed with the complainant to enter
into a compromise, etc.”
12. In light of the settled principle of law, it appears that the
criminal proceedings involving non-heinous offences or where
the offences are predominantly of a private nature, can be
annulled irrespective of the fact that trial has already been
concluded in conviction or appeal is pending against
conviction.
13. In the facts of the present case, the dispute is private in
nature and parties have voluntarily agreed to settle the
dispute and there is no coercion undue force on them for
arriving at settlement. The offence alleged cannot be serious
in nature for quashing of which would overwrite public
interest. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that in
view of settlement, no fruitful purpose would be served by
continuing the proceedings and thus, further continuation of
proceedings would amount to abuse of process of the Court
and therefore, quashing of criminal proceedings will advance
peace and harmony between the parties who have decided to
forget the dispute. Thus, to secure the ends of justice, the
Page 7 of 8
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 04 18:42:38 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/13705/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2026
(GJHC240709282026)
impugned FIR is required to be quashed and set aside in
exercise of powers conferred under Section 482 of the Code.
14. In the result, the application is allowed. The impugned
FIR being C.R.No.I - 72 of 2003 registered with Sami Police
Station as well as all consequential proceedings initiated in
pursuance thereof qua the petitioners i.e. (1) Shankarbhai
Varsangbhai Nadoda (2) Parmabhai Nadoda (3) Shankarbhai
Naranbhai Nadoda (4) Dhanabhai Nadoda (5) Chetanbhai
Nadoda (6) Dhanbhai Nadoda, so also judgment and order of
conviction dated 20.11.2024, passed in Criminal Case No.148
of 2017 by the trial Court are hereby quashed and set aside
qua the present Petitioners.
15. Learned Sessions Judge, Patan, shall pass appropriate
order in the pending criminal appeal being Criminal Appeal
No.186 of 2024.
16. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service
is permitted.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SHEKHAR P. BARVE
Page 8 of 8
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 04 18:42:38 IST 2026