01Facts
An FIR dated 4 April 2026 was registered against the petitioner at ‘B’ Division Gandhidham Police Station for offences under Sections 137(2) and 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
p. 4 · ¶ 7The judgment records that Sections 64(2)(m) and 65(1) of the BNSS and Sections 4 and [provision incomplete in the judgment] of the POCSO Act were also added during investigation.
p. 4 · ¶ 7The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings under Articles 14, 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the BNSS, relying on an amicable settlement.
p. 1 · ¶ 1The victim and her parents appeared before the Court; the parents filed affidavits stating that the dispute had been settled and that they did not wish to pursue the proceedings.
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 5–7The complainant’s counsel consented to quashing, while the State opposed the petition, referring to the seriousness of the allegations.
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 5–702Issues
i.1. Whether the FIR and consequential criminal proceedings could be quashed in the exercise of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction on the basis of the parties’ settlement, despite the serious allegations and the additional offences recorded during investigation.
pp. 3–5 · ¶ 6–9ii.2. Whether continuation of the proceedings would serve the interests of justice or instead amount to an abuse of process.
p. 5 · ¶ 903Law Applied
The petitioner invoked Section 528 of the BNSS and the High Court’s constitutional jurisdiction.
pp. 2–3 · ¶ 4The Court 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* as authorities relevant to quashing criminal proceedings, including on settlement and to prevent abuse of process.
pp. 2–3 · ¶ 4 · p. 5 · ¶ 9The judgment does not set out a detailed formulation of the governing test; it concludes that, in the circumstances before it, continuation would be futile, harassing and an abuse of process.
p. 5 · ¶ 9Provisions in the judgment · 6 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528Section 64Section 65
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 137Section 87
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Section 4
04Reasoning
The Court considered the settlement affidavits and the victim’s and her parents’ stated wish not to proceed, alongside the complainant’s lack of objection.
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 5, 7Although the State opposed quashing on the basis of the seriousness of the allegations, the Court relied on the cited authorities and concluded that continuing the proceedings against the petitioner would cause unnecessary harassment and that a further trial would be futile and an abuse of process.
p. 3 · ¶ 6 · p. 5 · ¶ 9The judgment does not separately analyse the effect of the additional offences recorded during investigation.
05Holding
The Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR, the criminal case and all consequential proceedings arising from it, insofar as they concerned the petitioner.
p. 6 · ¶ 10–11The Rule was made absolute.
p. 6 · ¶ 10–11Original Court PDF
SUJIT RAMASHRE PASWANvsSTATE OF GUJARAT
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
