After Complainant Settles With 13 Accused, Gujarat HC Quashes FIR Alleging Dacoity And Grievous Hurt

The petitioners sought to quash an FIR registered at Bayad Police Station as C.R. No. 11188002220020 of 2022, alleging offences under Sections 395, 326(a), 323, 506(2) and 427 of the IPC and Section 135 of the Police Act, together with the consequential criminal proceedings.

A charge-sheet had been filed.

A cross-FIR arising from the same dispute had previously been quashed by a Coordinate Bench on September 9, 2026.

The petitioners and the original complainant, who appeared before the Court and filed an affidavit consenting to quashing, stated that the dispute had been amicably settled.

The State opposed the petition, relying on the seriousness of the allegations.

The Court considered its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, and the principles governing quashing of criminal proceedings following settlement.

It relied on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, Nikhil Merchant v. CBI, Manoj Sharma v. State, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab and State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal.

Applying those authorities, the Court treated quashing as appropriate where, in the circumstances of the case, continuation would cause unnecessary harassment, render the trial futile, or amount to an abuse of process, and quashing would secure the ends of justice.

The Court noted that the complainant had given consent by affidavit and confirmed the settlement, while the cross-FIR arising from the same dispute had already been quashed.

Having considered the State’s objection based on the seriousness of the alleged offences, the Court concluded that, in view of the settlement and the circumstances on record, continuing the prosecution would be unnecessary harassment, make the trial futile and amount to an abuse of process.

Rule was made absolute, and direct service was permitted.