PARMAR LAGDHIRSINH SABARSINH (LACKYBHAI) vs STATE OF GUJARAT

Court
Gujarat High Court

R/SCR.A/5253/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2026
(GJHC240259192025)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (FOR CONSENT QUASHING) NO.
5253 of 2025

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI

==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
PARMAR LAGDHIRSINH SABARSINH (LACKYBHAI)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DHAVAL J MAKWANA(12857) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR PRATEEKKUMAR A PARMAR(12856) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. DHAWAN JAISWAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI

Date : 28/10/2026

JUDGMENT
1. The Petitioners have preferred the instant petition under Article
226 & 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking the following reliefs:-
a) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow
this petition.
b) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of
Certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction in the nature of Certiorari and be further
pleased to exercise the inherent Powers u/s 528 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhinta for
Page 1 of 5
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 18:41:46 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/5253/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2026
(GJHC240259192025)
quashing and setting aside the impugned FIR
registered on 20/03/2025 vide F.I.R. No.
11191024250374 of 2025 registered at Ramol Police
Station, Ahmedabad for the alleged offence
contemplated u/s 108, 296(b), 54 of B.N.S. 2023
AND Section 40, 42(a), 42(d) of Gujarat Money-
Lenders Act, 2011, AND Section 3(2) (v) of The
Scheduled Castes And The Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989 by holding the
same as in gross abuse of process of law and in
violation of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of
India.
c) Pending admission, hearing and/or final disposal of
this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay
the further proceedings of the Said F.I.R.;
d) Any other relief that may deem fit and proper, in the
facts and circumstances of the case may please be
granted.
2. Issue Rule to the respondents, returnable forthwith. Learned APP,
Mr. Dhawan Jaiswal accepts and waives service of Rule on behalf of
respondent No.1 - State. Learned advocate, Mr. L G Sudani accepts and
waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent No.2. He seeks
permission and is thereby permitted to file his Vakalatnama forthwith.
Respondent No.2 – Mr. Jatin Sunilbhai Hedau is present before this
Court and he has been duly identified by his advocate.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that impugned FIR
was registered on 20/03/2025 vide F.I.R. No. 11191024250374 of 2025
Page 2 of 5
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 18:41:46 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/5253/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2026
(GJHC240259192025)
registered at Ramol Police Station, Ahmedabad for the alleged offences
contemplated u/s 108, 296(b), 54 of B.N.S. 2023 AND Section 40,
42(a), 42(d) of Gujarat Money-Lenders Act, 2011, AND Section 3(2) (v)
of The Scheduled Castes And The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of
Atrocities) Act, 1989. He submitted that the matter has now been
amicably settled between the parties, i.e., petitioner and respondent
No.2 – complainant. In such circumstances, he prayed that the FIR as
well as all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the present
petitioners be quashed and set aside. In support of his contentions, he
has relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. , reported in (2012) 10 SCC
303 , Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab , reported in
(2008) 4 SCC 582 , Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation & Anr. , reported in 2009 (1) GLH 31, Manoj
Sharma Vs. State & Ors. , reported in 2009 (1) GLH 190 and
Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in
2014 (2) Crime 67 (SC) as well as State of Haryana Vs.
Bhajanlal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604.
5. In response, respondent No.2/original complainant appearing in
person along with his counsel invited the attention of this Court to his
affidavit filed along with this petition. He submitted that the matter has
now been amicably settled. In view thereof, he submitted that he has
no objections if the impugned FIR as well as all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom qua the present petitioner is quashed and
set aside.
Page 3 of 5
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 18:41:46 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/5253/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2026
(GJHC240259192025)
6. Per contra, learned APP appearing for respondent No.1 – State
vehemently argued that serious allegations has been levelled against
the petitioners herein, as such contended that the captioned petition is
liable to be rejected.
7. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsels for
the parties and having gone through the records, it appears that F.I.R.
No. 11191024250374 of 2025 was registered before Ramol Police
Station, Ahmedabad for the offences u/s 108, 296(b), 54 of B.N.S. 2023
AND Section 40, 42(a), 42(d) of Gujarat Money-Lenders Act, 2011, AND
Section 3(2) (v) of The Scheduled Castes And The Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989. However, now the matter has been
amicably settled between the petitioners and respondent No.2.
Respondent No.2 – complainant has filed also filed his consent affidavit,
thereby admitting the settlement. Para Nos.5 to 8 of the said affidavit
reads thus:-
“5. That an amicable settlement has been arrived
at between the parties, and the matter has been
resolved to the satisfaction of all concerned.
6. That in view of the said settlement, I have no
grievance against the applicant, and I do not wish
to pursue the present FIR further.
7. That the relationship between the parties has
always been friendly, built on mutual trust and
goodwill. The transaction in question was based
purely on this relationship, without any mollified
intent or financial pressure.
Page 4 of 5
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 18:41:46 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/5253/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2026
(GJHC240259192025)
8. That I hereby give my free and voluntary
consent for the quashing of the FIR and all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom.”
8. Thus, in view of the settlement affidavit and also taking into
consideration the decisions rendered in the cases of Gian Singh
(supra), Madan Mohan Abbot (supra), Nikhil Merchant (supra),
Manoj Sharma (supra), Narinder Singh (supra) as well as
Bhajanlal (supra), I am of the view that continuing further with the
criminal proceedings in relation to the impugned FIR against the
petitioner would be an unnecessary harassment to the petitioners.
Further trial would be a futile exercise and continuing with the criminal
proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR and the Criminal Case would
amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, to secure the ends of
justice, the impugned FIR as well as the proceedings of the Criminal
Case, and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom are
required to be quashed and set aside.
9. Thus, considering the overall submissions and the fact that the
parties have amicably settled the dispute, present petition stands
allowed. As such, the impugned F.I.R. No. 11191024250374 of 2025
registered at Ramol Police Station, as well as all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom qua the present petitioner is hereby
quashed and set aside.
10. Direct service is permitted. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
ARUN
Page 5 of 5
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 18:41:46 IST 2026