Gujarat HC Quashes FIR Against Jailed Accused After Complainant Settlement, Orders Release If Not Needed In Other Cases

An FIR was registered at Sherkotda Police Station, Ahmedabad, against the petitioners for offences under Sections 324(4), 296(B), 351(3), 331(6) and 54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The petitioners sought quashing under Article 14, 21 and 226 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on the basis that the dispute had been amicably settled.

The complainant filed an affidavit stating that the complaint arose from a misunderstanding, that the parties had settled the matter, and that she had no objection to quashing.

The State opposed the petition, citing the seriousness of the allegations and reports of other cases involving petitioners 2 and 3.

The petitioners were in custody when the petition was decided.

The Court considered its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the BNSS to quash criminal proceedings to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process.

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. Bhajan Lal in considering whether proceedings may be quashed where the parties have settled the dispute.

The Court’s stated basis was that, in the circumstances of this case, continuation of the proceedings would be unnecessary harassment, a futile exercise and an abuse of process.

The complainant’s affidavit confirmed a voluntary settlement and stated that the FIR had been lodged because of a misunderstanding; she did not oppose quashing.

Having considered the settlement and the cited authorities, the Court concluded that continuing the proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would amount to an abuse of process.

Although the State relied on the allegations and reported cases involving two petitioners, the Court allowed the petition on the facts and settlement before it.

It directed the jail authorities to release the petitioners forthwith, unless they were required in another case, and directed the Registry to send the order for compliance.

Rule was made absolute.