After Complainant Says Petitioners Repaid His Loss, Gujarat HC Quashes FIR Against Them Following Settlement

The petitioners sought quashing of FIR CR No. 11198066260220/2026, registered at Velavadar-Bhal Police Station, Bhavnagar, for offences under Sections 316(2), 316(4), 316(5), 318(2), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340, 344, 3(5) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the consequential proceedings.

The petitioners and the original complainant submitted that they had amicably settled the dispute. The complainant’s affidavit stated that the loss had been paid, that he did not wish to proceed, and that he had no objection to quashing, subject to assurances concerning future interference with his business and reputation.

The State opposed quashing on the ground of the matter’s seriousness.

The FIR alleged offences under Sections 316(2), 316(4), 316(5), 318(2), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340, 344, 3(5) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

In considering quashing following settlement, the Court relied on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303; Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582; Nikhil Merchant v. CBI, 2009 (1) GLH 31; Manoj Sharma v. State, 2009 (1) GLH 190; Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466; and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604. Applying the principles reflected in those authorities, the Court treated quashing as appropriate where, in the circumstances of the settled dispute, continuation of the criminal proceedings would constitute an abuse of process and serve no fruitful purpose.

The Court considered the parties’ joint submission that the dispute had been amicably settled and the complainant’s affidavit confirming settlement, repayment of the loss, and lack of objection to quashing.

Although the State opposed the petition because of the alleged offences’ seriousness, the Court concluded that, in the circumstances before it, continuing the prosecution would amount to an abuse of process and would serve no fruitful purpose. It therefore found quashing necessary to secure the ends of justice.

Direct service was permitted, and the Registry was directed to accept the complainant’s advocate’s vakalatnama.