Criminal proceedings arising from a settled land dispute were quashed as no longer surviving.

Respondent No. 2 lodged I.C.R. No. 10 of 2015 at B Division Police Station, Rajkot City, alleging offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code in relation to a land/plot dispute.

The applicant sought quashing of the FIR, contending that it concerned an alleged incident of April 2014 but was filed only in January 2015 without an explanation for the delay, and that an earlier police inquiry had found that the complainant had no documentary proof of ownership and had made repeated baseless applications concerning the same subject matter.

Initially, the High Court granted interim protection from further proceedings.

On 7 March 2017, considering that nine similar prosecutions had allegedly been instituted against the applicant, the Court directed expeditious investigation while protecting the applicant from coercive steps, subject to his cooperation.

At the final hearing, the State produced a police communication dated 9 April 2026 stating that the complainant had compromised with Karmanbhai Velabhai Todia, who was in possession of the disputed land, and that the other accused, Indubhai Bachubhai Sarasiya, had died approximately four years earlier.

Whether, in light of the compromise between the complainant and the person in possession of the disputed land, the criminal complaint/FIR should be quashed.

Whether the death of the other accused and the changed circumstances rendered continuation of the complaint untenable.

The Court exercised its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to consider the applicant’s request for quashing of the FIR and criminal proceedings.

The FIR alleged offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

The Court applied the principle that criminal proceedings may be brought to an end where subsequent circumstances—particularly a compromise resolving the underlying dispute and the death of a co-accused—show that continuation of the complaint would serve no surviving purpose.

No judicial precedent was cited in the judgment.

The Court relied on the State’s communication confirming that the complainant had compromised with the principal person in possession of the disputed land, thereby resolving the subject matter underlying the complaint.

It further noted that the other accused had died approximately four years earlier.

In these circumstances, the Court concluded that the complaint no longer survived for effective prosecution and that continuation of the proceedings was unwarranted.

The Court therefore did not decide the earlier allegations concerning delay, lack of ownership documents, or the alleged abuse of process on merits.

It accordingly quashed and set aside the complaint/FIR, disposed of the application, and discharged the notice.