01Facts
The petitioner sought quashing of FIR No. 11191025260600 of 2026, registered at Kagadapith Police Station, Ahmedabad, for offences under Sections 316(2) and 316(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
pp. 2–4The FIR arose from a commercial dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 2, the complainant.
pp. 2–4The complainant filed an affidavit stating that the parties had settled the dispute for ₹8,00,000 in full and final satisfaction of the outstanding dues, and consented to quashing the FIR.
pp. 2–4The State opposed the petition, arguing that the allegations were serious.
pp. 2–402Issues
i.Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings where the parties have amicably settled the underlying commercial dispute and the complainant consents to quashing.
pp. 2–5ii.Whether continuing the criminal proceedings despite the settlement would amount to unnecessary harassment or an abuse of the process of law.
p. 503Law Applied
The petition invoked Articles 14, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as the basis for seeking quashing.
pp. 2–5The Court considered Sections 316(2) and 316(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, under which the FIR had been registered.
pp. 2–5It relied on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Manoj Sharma v. State, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal in considering whether proceedings may be quashed following settlement and to secure the ends of justice.
pp. 2–5Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 316
04Reasoning
The Court treated the dispute as arising from a commercial transaction and noted the complainant’s affidavit confirming full and final settlement, payment of the outstanding dues, and voluntary consent to quashing.
pp. 3–5Although the State characterized the allegations as serious, the Court concluded that, in light of the settlement and the cited authorities, continuing the prosecution would unnecessarily harass the petitioner, make the trial futile, and amount to an abuse of process.
pp. 3–505Holding
The Court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 11191025260600 of 2026, together with the Criminal Case and all consequential proceedings arising from it, insofar as they concerned the petitioner.
p. 5The Rule was made absolute.
p. 5Original Court PDF
PRADEEP RATANLAL PAREEK (PRADEEP RATANLAL PAREKH)vsSTATE OF GUJARAT
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
