Gujarat HC Quashes FIR Against Land Buyer After Victims Settle Dispute Over Sale Deed Cancelled By Civil Court

In brief

The question

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its power under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings in light of the parties’ amicable settlement and the civil court’s compromise decree.

The court held

The Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and consequential proceedings qua the petitioner, accused No. 1.

It also directed

It also directed the Sub-Registrar Office No. 8, Rajkot Rural, to note the civil court’s cancellation of the sale deed, and directed the Registry to forward a copy of the judgment to that office.

01Facts

The petitioner, accused No. 1, purchased agricultural land at Village Sardhar by registered sale deed from persons alleged to have impersonated its owners.

pp. 1–2 · ¶ 2–3.3

The true owner, Vijyaben @ Vajiben Mavjibhai Kanani, filed a civil suit against the petitioner; the parties later settled, and the civil court passed a compromise decree cancelling the sale deed.

pp. 1–2 · ¶ 2–3.3

The petitioner sought quashing under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, of an FIR registered at Ajidam Police Station, Rajkot Rural, for offences under Sections 61(2)(a), 319(2), 336(2), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the consequential proceedings.

p. 1, 3 · ¶ 2, 4–6

The complainant and victims appeared before the Court, confirmed the settlement, and the Court verified it directly.

p. 1, 3 · ¶ 2, 4–6

02Issues

i.1. Whether the High Court should exercise its power under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings in light of the parties’ amicable settlement and the civil court’s compromise decree.

pp. 3–4 · ¶ 6–8

ii.2. Whether that relief should extend to the petitioner, accused No. 1, in particular.

p. 4 · ¶ 8

03Law Applied

Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, provides the basis for the High Court’s inherent power to make orders necessary to secure the ends of justice.

p. 3 · ¶ 7

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, in considering whether quashing was appropriate to secure the ends of justice where the parties had settled their dispute.

p. 3 · ¶ 7

Provisions in the judgment · 6 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 61 Section 319 Section 336 Section 338 Section 340

04Reasoning

The Court considered the compromise decree cancelling the sale deed, the settlement affidavit, and the parties’ statements confirming that the dispute had been resolved.

pp. 2–4 · ¶ 3.3–7

Having personally verified the settlement with the complainant and victims, and applying the cited quashing principles, the Court concluded that allowing the dispute to continue would not serve the ends of justice.

pp. 2–4 · ¶ 3.3–7

05Holding

The Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and consequential proceedings qua the petitioner, accused No. 1.

p. 4 · ¶ 8

It also directed the Sub-Registrar Office No. 8, Rajkot Rural, to note the civil court’s cancellation of the sale deed, and directed the Registry to forward a copy of the judgment to that office.

p. 4 · ¶ 9–10

LawLens.Gujarat High Court

Original Court PDF