MAHAVIRSINH RAWATBAPU VALA vs STATE OF GUJARAT

R/SCR.A/15785/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2026
(GJHC240835742026)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING)
NO. 15785 of 2026
=====================================================
MAHAVIRSINH RAWATBAPU VALA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
=====================================================
Appearance:
MR SAGAR V GODA(10062) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS DHWANI R. TRIPATHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=====================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

Date : 03/11/2026

JUDGMENT
Learned advocate Ms. Khyati M. Bhati submits that
she has instructions to appear on behalf of the respondent No.2
– original complainant.
1. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case
and since it is jointly stated at the bar by learned advocates for
both the sides that the dispute between the parties has been
resolved amicably , this matter is taken up for final disposal
forthwith.
2. By way of this petition 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.
11208002260703 of 2026 registered with Ajidam Police Station,
Rajkot Rural for the offences under Sections 61(2)(a), 319(2),
Page 1 of 4
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 04 17:43:57 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/15785/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2026
(GJHC240835742026)
336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
3. The brief facts of the case are that, the accused No.1
– Mahavirsinh Rawatbapu Vala has purchased the disputed land
of Survey No. 574 Paiki 1 at Village Sardhar by executing a sale
deed, whereby the accused Nos.2, 3 and other unidentified
accused, impersonating themselves as owner of the immovable
property (agricultural land), sold it by way of a registered sale
deed (At page No. 23).
3.1 Later on, petitioner – accused No.1 discovered that he
has been cheated as also the complainant. Thus, the Civil Suit
came to be filed before the Principal Civil Court, Rajkot, vide
Regular Civil Suit No. 176 of 2026, by the owner of the
agricultural land, namely Vijyaben @ Vajiben Mavjibhai Kanani,
against the accused No. 1.
3.2 What further appears from the record that both the
parties have appeared in the amicable settlement and placed on
record of the Regular Civil Suit the compromise purshis (At
Exhibit-8).
nd
3.3 The learned 22 Additional Senior Civil Judge,
Rajkot, having considering the bonafide and genuineness of the
settlement between the parties, was pleased to draw compromise
decree in terms of the settlement purshis filed by the party,
which essentially cancelled the registered sale deed executed in
favor of accused No. 1 and which is placed on the record of this
Court (At page No. 23).
Page 2 of 4
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 04 17:43:57 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/15785/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2026
(GJHC240835742026)
4. Thereafter, matter is taken up for hearing before this
Court. Today, the complainant as well as the victims of the
offence – Mavjibhai Manjhibhai Kanani and Vajiben Mavjibhai
Kanani are personally present before the Court and duly
identified by learned advocate Mr. Sagar V. Goda appearing for
the petitioner, who submitted that the matter has been amicably
settled between them.
5. Learned advocate Ms. Khyati M. Bhati appearing for
the complainant identified the victims as well as the complainant
and also submitted her Vakalatnama, which is hereby taken on
record, and also submitted that the parties have amicably settled
the dispute.
6. This Court has also personally verified the terms and
conditions of the settlement by interacting with the complainant
and victims.
7. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties and considering the facts and circumstances
of the case, settlement affidavit as also taking into consideration
the decisions rendered in G ian Singh Vs. State of Punjab &
Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 303; Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of
Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582; Nikhil Merchant Vs. CBI & Anr.,
2009 (1) GLH 31; Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Ors., 2009 (1)
GLH 190; Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.,
(2014) 6 SCC 466; and State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, AIR
1992 SC 604 , in opinion of this Court, since parties have buried
their dispute, the dispute which is already buried need not to be
allowed to roll further. Hence, to secure the ends of justice, it
Page 3 of 4
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 04 17:43:57 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/15785/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2026
(GJHC240835742026)
would be appropriate to quash and set aside the impugned FIR
and all consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof
under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023.
8. In the result, the petition is allowed . The impugned
FIR being C.R.No.11208002260703 of 2026 registered with
Ajidam Police Station, Rajkot Rural as well as all consequential
proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof are hereby quashed
and set aside qua the petitioner – accused No.1 - Mahavirsinh
Rawatbapu Vala
9. Further, the Sub-Registrar Office (SRO) No.8 at
Rajkot Rural is directed to take the note of the fact that sale deed
bearing serial No.4224, dated 01.02.2006, has been cancelled by
the competent Civil Court vide judgment of Regular Civil Suit
No.176 of 2006.
10. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this
judgment to the SRO-8, Rajkot Rural, for making a note in the
Register.
Direct service is permitted.
(J.C. DOSHI, J.)
Raj
Page 4 of 4
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 04 17:43:57 IST 2026