Facts
The petitioners filed a petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, seeking to quash FIR No. 11210048251214 of 2025 registered at Umra Police Station
Source reference: p. 1-2The FIR alleged that Petitioner No. 2, after a consensual relationship with the complainant, used compromising photographs to blackmail him and demanded ₹42.50 lakhs, of which ₹20 lakhs was paid
Source reference: p. 3The petitioners argued for quashing on the grounds of a settlement supported by the complainant's affidavit
Source reference: p. 2Notably, Petitioner No. 1 had previously filed a similar quashing petition (Criminal Misc. Application No. 974 of 2026), which was withdrawn on 15.06.2026 after the Court indicated it was not inclined to grant relief
Source reference: p. 3Issues
1. Whether the FIR for offences under the BNS and IT Act can be quashed based on a settlement between the parties despite the gravity of the allegations
Source reference: para 3, 52. Whether a successive application for quashing is maintainable when a previous application was withdrawn without a substantial change in circumstances
Source reference: para 4, 6Law Applied
Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 (inherent powers of the High Court) and the principles of the Information Technology Act, 2000
Source reference: p. 1-2Bhisham Lal Verma v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1399), which holds that a successive application for quashing an FIR is maintainable only if there is a "substantial change in the circumstances" after the disposal of the earlier application
Source reference: p. 4Reasoning
The Court found that the ingredients of the alleged offences (blackmail and extortion) were clearly made out in the FIR, highlighting the serious nature of the allegations involving the trapping of the informant for money
Source reference: p. 3Regarding the settlement, the Court observed that this "change in circumstance" was not natural but "induced by the petitioners" to circumvent the previous withdrawal of their application
Source reference: p. 4Since the Petitioner No. 1 had previously withdrawn a petition for the same relief just weeks prior (15.06.2026) because the Court was not inclined to exercise discretion, the filing of this successive petition was deemed a strategy to re-litigate the same issue without a bona fide change in legal standing
Source reference: p. 3-4Holding
The Court dismissed the petition, answering the issues in the negative. It held that the petition was a "sheer abuse of process of law" and devoid of merit
The Court refused to quash the FIR and directed each petitioner to deposit a cost of ₹10,000 before the High Court Legal Services Committee within 15 days
Source reference: p. 4Original Court PDF
ABHISHEKBHAI SANJAYBHAI SETHIAvsSTATE OF GUJARAT
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in