Settlement and restoration of possession warrant quashing of land-grabbing FIR; damages remain separately recoverable civil claims.

Respondent No. 2 alleged that he had advanced money to Shardaben Deepakbhai Kariya due to her illness and subsequently purchased her flat situated at B-505, Valab Heights Apartment, Umargam, District Valsad. Disputes arose when the petitioners, namely Shardaben’s daughter and relative, allegedly refused to hand over possession of the flat. Respondent No. 2 therefore lodged an FIR under Sections 3 and 4 of the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020, at Umargam Police Station, Valsad, being FIR No. 11200045252345 of 2025 dated 22 December 2025.

The petitioners had also instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 27 of 2023 concerning the property, but unconditionally withdrew the suit by filing a pursis on 5 January 2026. During the pendency of the quashing proceedings, possession of the flat was handed over to respondent No. 2. Although respondent No. 2 acknowledged receipt of possession, it was contended that the flat had suffered damage and that amounts remained recoverable from the petitioners.

1. Whether the FIR registered under Sections 3 and 4 of the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020, and the consequential criminal proceedings should be quashed after possession of the disputed flat was handed over to the complainant/purchaser and the underlying dispute was settled?

2. Whether the alleged damage to the flat and the complainant’s claim for recovery of amounts justified continuation of the criminal proceedings?

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to prevent abuse of the process of law and secure the ends of justice.

It 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, for the principle that criminal proceedings may be quashed where the dispute is essentially private or has been settled and continuation of the prosecution would serve no fruitful purpose or amount to abuse of process.

The FIR itself invoked Sections 3 and 4 of the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020.

The Court noted that possession of the flat had been delivered to respondent No. 2, thereby removing the immediate dispute concerning alleged unlawful retention or land grabbing.

In light of the parties’ settlement and the subsequent transfer of possession, the Court found that the dispute no longer survived in a manner warranting continuation of the prosecution. Although the complainant alleged damage to the flat and sought recovery of money, the Court held that such a claim did not form part of the subject matter of the impugned FIR. The complainant was therefore left at liberty to pursue an appropriate civil or other remedy for recovery, subject to law; that claim could not justify continuation of the criminal proceedings.

Applying the principles governing quashing of proceedings following settlement, the Court concluded that continuing the FIR would constitute an abuse of the process of law and would serve no useful purpose.

FIR No. 11200045252345 of 2025 registered at Umargam Police Station, Valsad, for offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020, along with all consequential proceedings, was quashed and set aside under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Rule was made absolute, with direct service permitted.