Gujarat High Court
Dashrathbhai Bholidas Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 21 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/15200/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 15200 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
DASHRATHBHAI BHOLIDAS PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR Y N OZA, SENIOR ADVOCATE with APURVA K JANI(7057) for the
Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HARDIK A DAVE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR with MR H K PATEL, APP for
the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
Date : 21/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By filing the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the BNSS') the petitioner herein has prayed for the following relief:
"a) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this Petition;
b) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or directions also exercise inherent powers conferred under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and thereby Page 1 of 28 Uploaded by MR.AMIT HEMANTKUMAR SONAGARA(HCD0079) on Sat Nov 29 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 12 21:42:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/15200/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined be pleased to quash and set-aside the FIR being FIR No. 11192011220374/2022 registered with Bopal Police Station, Ahmedabad Rural on 25.11.2022 annexed at Annexure A and all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforementioned FIR on any appropriate terms and conditions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit qua the petitioner in the interest of justice.
c) Pending admission, hearing and/or final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the further proceedings of FIR bearing FIR No. 11192011220374/2022 registered with Bopal Police Station, Ahmedabad Rural qua the present petitioner.
d) Such other and further relief as Your Lordships may deem just, fit and expedient be granted in favour of the petitioner."
2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the filing of the present petition are such that an FIR being FIR No.11192011220374 came to be registered with the Bopal Police Station on 25.11.2022 for offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 474, 490 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code against the present petition and the other co-accused. Being aggrieved by the said FIR, the petitioner herein preferred a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as 'the CrPC') being Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.5593 of 2023. The said application was dismissed by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide Judgment and Order dated 02.05.2023. It is pertinent to note that the said petition was filed by the petitioner mainly on the ground of settlement being arrived at between the parties. However, the coordinate bench of this Court did not accept the Page 2 of 28 Uploaded by MR.AMIT HEMANTKUMAR SONAGARA(HCD0079) on Sat Nov 29 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 12 21:42:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/15200/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined settlement and proceeded to decide the matter on merits and had dismissed the said application vide aforesaid order. Against the said order, the petitioner had approached the Hon'ble Apex Court by filing petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.13738 of 2023. The Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 01.08.2025 had disposed of the said petition recording the fact that the private respondent i.e. the complainant had categorically stated that he has not given any consent for settlement. However, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had made a statement before the Supreme Court that the petitioner would file an application seeking anticipatory bail. Resultantly, the applicant had preferred an application seeking anticipatory bail before the learned Sessions Court (Ahmedabad Rural). Learned Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad Rural was pleased to dismiss the said application vide the order dated 22.08.2025 against which, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.18098 of 2025. The said application was also dismissed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide Judgment and Order dated 17.09.2025. Against the order of the Coordinate Bench dated 17.09.2025, the petitioner had approached the Hon'ble Apex Court by filing petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.15236 of 2025. After arguing the matter at some length, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the said proceedings and therefore the Supreme Court vide Order dated 24.09.2025 had dismissed the Special Leave Petition. Thereafter, the present petition is filed with the prayer referred to herein above invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and Page 3 of 28 Uploaded by MR.AMIT HEMANTKUMAR SONAGARA(HCD0079) on Sat Nov 29 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 12 21:42:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/15200/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined Section 528 of the BNSS.
3. Heard learned senior advocate Shri Y. N. Oza appearing with learned advocate Shri Apurva K. Jani for the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner herein has been falsely implicated in the present FIR. The present FIR is nothing but a classic example of vexatious proceedings initiated against the petitioner. He submitted that as recorded in the FIR itself, the incident alleged in the FIR had occurred on 13.11.1982 whereas the present FIR came to be lodged on 25.11.2022. Thus, there is a huge delay of 39 long years in lodging the present FIR. There is no explanation worth the name explaining the delay of 39 years caused in lodging the FIR. During these 39 years, the petitioner and his family have remained in peaceful possession of the disputed land being the bonafide purchasers and there has been no challenge to it by the first informant nor any objection is ever raised by him. If the first informant believed that the petitioner had usurped the land belonging to him taking recourse to illegal means, he ought to have taken recourse to the legal proceedings claiming title over the disputed land and also to get the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner in the year 1983 canceled. However, for the reasons best known to the first informant, no such proceedings have been undertaken by him against the petitioner and now, since such proceedings under the civil law having become time barred, the present FIR has been lodged after 39 long years by the first informant with an ulterior motive of milking money from the petitioner. He submitted that the land in dispute originally belonged to one Shatrughandasji. In the year 1982, upon demise of the said Shatrughandasji, one Page 4 of 28 Uploaded by MR.AMIT HEMANTKUMAR SONAGARA(HCD0079) on Sat Nov 29 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 12 21:42:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/15200/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined Saryudasji being his heir and legal representative had inherited the land. In the year 1983, the petitioner had purchased the land from the said Saryudasji through registered sale deed. The necessary revenue entries in this regard were also mutated in the revenue record and after the lapse of 39 long years, the first informant is seeking to dispute the transaction which had taken place in the year 1983 by claiming non-existence of Saryudasji. However, from the papers of Charge Sheet filed against the other co-accused, it appears that the person named Saryudasji existed on this earth. Therefore, the claim made by the first informant in the FIR is falsified. He submitted that the fact that the sale deed, which came to be executed in favour of the petitioner in the year 1983 was registered, would amount to the fact that the first informant had knowledge about the transaction having taken place qua the disputed land. He also submitted that the first informant was also holding other parcels of land which were either adjacent to the disputed land or were located in the near vicinity. After the demise of his father, the first informant diligently got his name entered into the revenue record qua the other parcels of land. However, as claimed by the first informant, through inadvertence, he could not get his name mutated in the revenue record qua the disputed land. This aspect does not inspire confidence in the story narrated by the first informant in the FIR as, if the first informant could get his name entered into the revenue record qua the other parcels of land, there was no reason for him not to do the same qua the disputed land. The delay caused in lodging the FIR, as per the settled legal position, would vitiate the proceedings and therefore, this Court should exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner. Relying upon the Page 5 of 28 Uploaded by MR.AMIT HEMANTKUMAR SONAGARA(HCD0079) on Sat Nov 29 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 12 21:42:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/15200/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Mahmood Ali and Others versus the State of UP and Others reported in 2023 INSC 684, learned counsel argued that when an accused seeks quashing of the FIR under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming the case to be frivolous or motivated, the Court must examine the FIR with special care as the FIRs lodged with ulterior motive would be drafted articulately and would make out necessary ingredients for the offence alleged therein. In such circumstances, the Court must also consider the surrounding circumstances and make an effort to read between the lines and should also go through the material gathered during investigation. He also argued that merely because there are antecedents against the petitioner, the request of the petitioner to quash the FIR cannot be discarded on the grounds of antecedents alone. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Dilboo (Dead) by Lrs. versus Dhanraji (Dead) reported in 2000 (7) SCC 702. Learnd senior counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the registration of a document constitutes deemed knowledge of it to the world. The said principle has also been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in its several subsequent pronouncements. Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the first informant that he got the knowledge of the document in question only few days prior to registration of the FIR. Arguing on the conduct of the first informant, the learned senior counsel submitted that normally upon the death of the parents, the legal heirs would mutate their names in the revenue records qua the property promptly and would not wait for 40 long years. The ground of forgetfulness claimed by the first informant in the FIR is a bald excuse. He Page 6 of 28 Uploaded by MR.AMIT HEMANTKUMAR SONAGARA(HCD0079) on Sat Nov 29 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 12 21:42:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/15200/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined further submitted that the petitioner is the bonafide purchaser of the property in question and even after 40 long years of having attained the title over the disputed property, the petitioner and his family are still in possession of the property in question. Had the petitioner entered into the transaction in question with any malice, he would have transferred or alienated the disputed land immediately after having got the sale deed executed in his favour and he would not have remained in possession of the same for these many years. This conduct on the part of the petitioner speaks volumes about the transaction being genuine. Replying to the submissions of learned Public Prosecutor, learned Senior Counsel submitted that dismissal of the earlier application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C would not bar the petitioner from invoking the powers of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He therefore submitted to allow the present petition and quash and set aside the FIR in question qua the petitioner. Learned senior advocate has sought to rely upon the following judgments in support of his submissions:
(1) In case of Dilboo (Dead) by Lrs. versus Dhanraji (Dead) reported in 2000 (7) SCC 702 (2) In case of Mahmood Ali and Others versus the State of UP and Others reported in 2023 INSC 684 (3) In case of Khandubhai Poonabhai Tandel Versus State of Gujarat reported in (2015) 2 GLR 1146 (4) In case of Jinofer Bhujwala Versus State of Gujarat reported in (2015) 2 GLH 112 (5) In case of Manindersingh Jolly Versus State of Gujarat reported in (2017) 2 GLH 121 (6) In case of Bhikhaji Ravaji Thakor Thr' Page 7 of 28 Uploaded by MR.AMIT HEMANTKUMAR SONAGARA(HCD0079) on Sat Nov 29 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 12 21:42:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/15200/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined Pravinaben Bhupendrabhai Shah Versus State of Gujarat Thr' Secretary and others in Letters Patent Appeal No.1157 of 2006 at the High Court of Gujarat (7) In case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Versus N.R.Vairamani reported in 2004 (0) AIJEL-SC 3415 (8) In case of Whiteswan Buildcon Llp Versus Thakor Praveenji Mangaji reported in 2022 (0) AIJEL- HC 244741 (9) In case of Madhubhai Virjibhai Patel Versus State of Gujarat and another in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.7023 of 2009 at the High Court of Gujarat
4. Learned Public Prosecutor Shri. Hardik Dave appearing with learned APP Shri. Himanshu Patel has opposed the present petition. He submitted that the disputed land originally belonged to one Shatrughandasji who expired in the year 1950. In 1982, an individual named Saryudas claimed to be the son of the said Shatrughandasji and got his name mutated in the revenue records as heir and legal representative of the said Shatrughandasji. Within a short span thereafter, in the year 1983, the said Saryudas executed a sale deed qua the disputed property in favour of the present petitioner. In fact, the said Saryudas was nowhere connected with the original owner Shatrugandas. Shatrugandas happened to be the grandfather of the first informant and after his death, the property was inherited by his father. As per the record, the person named Saryudas was not at all in existence at the relevant time and was a got-up person by the petitioner and the other co-accused to usurp the disputed land. These facts clearly indicate the Page 8 of 28 Uploaded by MR.AMIT HEMANTKUMAR SONAGARA(HCD0079) on Sat Nov 29 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 12 21:42:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/15200/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined ingredients of the offence alleged against the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner herein had earlier preferred Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.5593 of 2023 under Section 482 of the CrPC praying for quashing of the FIR. Though the said application was filed by the petitioner on the ground of settlement between the parties, the co-ordinate bench of this Court went on to dismiss the said application vide judgment and order dated 02.05.2023 on merits. The said order has also been confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and thereafter, the present successive application for quashing of the FIR is filed by the petitioner and there is no change in circumstances after the dismissal of the earlier application filed by the petitioner. He also submitted that the conduct on the part of the petitioner also requires to be considered. Though the FIR in question has been lodged in the year 2022, the petitioner herein has been evading the process of investigation and has not at all cooperated with the investigation despite dismissal of his anticipatory bail application by this Court as well as by the Hon'ble Apex Court. He also submitted that the petitioner herein is having several other antecedents of similar nature and therefore also, this Court should not exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. He therefore submitted to dismiss the present petition. Learned Public Prosecutor has sought to rely upon the following judgments in support of his submissions:
1) In case of Punit Beriwala Versus State of NCT of Delhi and others reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 983
2) In case of Nadirkhan Babakhan Navabkhan Pathan Page 9 of 28 Uploaded by MR.AMIT HEMANTKUMAR SONAGARA(HCD0079) on Sat Nov 29 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 12 21:42:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/15200/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined Versus State of Gujarat reported in 2003 (0) AIJEL-
HC 208178
5. Learned advocate Shri Alok M. Thakkar appearing for the original complainant has also opposed the present petition by adopting the arguments submitted by learned Public Prosecutor.
6. Heard Learned Advocates for the Parties. At the outset it is required to be noted that the petitioner herein had earlier preferred Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.5593 of 2023 invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the CrPC. During the course of hearing of the said application, it was submitted that the parties have amicably settled the dispute and that the complainant had no objection if the present FIR was quashed. However, the coordinate bench of this Court did not accept the aspect of settlement between the parties and went on to decide the application on merits and was pleased to dismiss the said application vide judgment and order dated 02.05.2023. While dismissing the said application, the following observations were made by the coordinate bench of this Court.
"4. Having heard learned advocate for the it petitioners and learned APP for the respondent State, appears that present applicant accused had clearly played an active role in the commission of serious offence of forgery, used such forged documents as genuine to grab the land of the original complainant. It appears that the present applicant accused and his brother who is in judicial custody in connection with the present offence, are in habit of grabbing the lands by such Page 10 of 28 Uploaded by MR.AMIT HEMANTKUMAR SONAGARA(HCD0079) on Sat Nov 29 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 12 21:42:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/15200/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined and similar modus operandi and other criminal complaints of forgery have been lodged against the present applicant. It also appears that the applicant accused is habitual offender and he is involved in total 7 offences including the present and he is shown as absconder since the charge- sheet is filed qua other accused. It also appears that the conduct of the applicant of not cooperating with the investigating agency though there are conditional bail orders passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as by this Hon'ble Court. The present applicant was considered on regular bail by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 26.08.2022 in Criminal Appeal No.1350 of 2022 in connection of offence registered with the Vastrapur Police Station, however, the State of Gujarat had filed an application for cancellation of bail of the applicant accused in connection with C.R. NO.I-11191020201493 registered with Vastrapur Police Station and the same is pending for its adjudication before this Court.
5. This Court notices that this request is made for exercise of inherent powers under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., which are very wide amplitude. These inherent powers can exercised either to sure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of law. However, it would dependent on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category is prescribed by the Court for the same. What is Page 11 of 28 Uploaded by MR.AMIT HEMANTKUMAR SONAGARA(HCD0079) on Sat Nov 29 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 12 21:42:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/15200/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined required to be considered is the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences, such offence of rape or dacoity or the offence leading injuries etc. may not be considered for the purpose of exercise of inherent powers. murder or to serious
6. Ordinarily, it is expected that the category of commercial offences or disputes of mercantile and of civil nature or matrimonial disputes or disputes of partnership firms etc., the Court may consider to exercise these powers, when the parties have chosen to settle the disputes. The Court also need to record, whether the continuation of the criminal prosecution would cause extreme prejudice to the accused or would cause him injustice, if not allowed the quashment, even after the parties have settled all their disputes. These powers are required to be exercised sparingly, as stated above. Since, the offence against the society, it cannot be said to be a private FIR between the parties.
7. In a series of decisions, the Apex Court has explained the contours of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In the case of Prabhatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr., (2017) 9 SCC 641, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:Page 12 of 28 Uploaded by MR.AMIT HEMANTKUMAR SONAGARA(HCD0079) on Sat Nov 29 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 12 21:42:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/15200/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined "10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state has supported the judgment of the High Court. Learned counsel emphasized the circumstances which weighed with the High Court, including (i) the seriousness of the allegations; (ii) the conduct of the appellants who were absconding; and
(iii) the criminal antecedents of the appellants. Hence, it was urged that the appellants were not entitled to the relief of quashing the FIR merely because they had entered into a settlement with the complainant.
11. Section 482 is prefaced with an overriding provision. The statute saves the inherent power of the High Court, as a superior court, to make such orders as are necessary (i) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court; or (ii) otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In Gian Singh (supra) a bench of three learned Judges of this Court adverted to the body of precedent on the subject and laid down guiding principles which the High Court should consider in determining as to whether to quash an FIR or complaint in the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction. The considerations which must weigh with the High Court are:
"61...the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such Page 13 of 28 Uploaded by MR.AMIT HEMANTKUMAR SONAGARA(HCD0079) on Sat Nov 29 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 12 21:42:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/15200/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and Page 14 of 28 Uploaded by MR.AMIT HEMANTKUMAR SONAGARA(HCD0079) on Sat Nov 29 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 12 21:42:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/15200/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.
12. In Narinder Singh (supra), Dr Justice A K Sikri, speaking for a bench of two learned Judges of this Court observed that in respect of offences against society, it is the duty of the state to punish the offender. In consequence, deterrence provides a rationale for punishing the offender. Hence, even when there is a settlement, the view of the offender and victim will not prevail since it is in the interest of society that the offender should be punished to deter others from committing a similar crime. On the other hand, there may be offences falling in the category where the correctional objective of criminal law would have to be given more weight age than the theory of deterrence. In such a case, the court may be of the opinion that a settlement between the parties would lead to better relations between them and would resolve a festering private dispute. The court observed that the timing of a settlement is of significance in determining whether the jurisdiction under Section 482 should be exercised:
"29.7 Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge-sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its Page 15 of 28 Uploaded by MR.AMIT HEMANTKUMAR SONAGARA(HCD0079) on Sat Nov 29 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 12 21:42:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/15200/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits This Court held, while dealing with an offence under Section 307 of the Penal Code that the following circumstances had weighed with it in quashing the First Information Report:
"33.We have gone through the FIR as well which was recorded on the basis of statement of the complainant/victim. It gives an indication that the complainant was attacked allegedly by the accused persons because of some previous dispute between the parties, though nature of dispute etc. is not stated in detail. However, a very pertinent statement appears on record viz., "respectable persons have been trying for a compromise up till now, which could not be finalized". This becomes an important aspect. It appears that there have been some disputes which led to the aforesaid purported attack by the accused on the complainant. In this context when we find that the elders of the village, including Sarpanch, intervened in the matter and the parties have not only buried their hatchet but have decided to live peacefully in future, this becomes an important consideration. The evidence is yet to be led in the Court. It has not even started. In view of compromise between parties, there is a minimal chance of the witnesses coming forward in support of the prosecution case. Even though nature of injuries can still be established by producing the doctor Page 16 of 28 Uploaded by MR.AMIT HEMANTKUMAR SONAGARA(HCD0079) on Sat Nov 29 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 12 21:42:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/15200/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined as witness who conducted medical examination, it may become difficult to prove as to who caused these injuries. The chances of conviction, therefore, appear to be remote. It would, therefore, be unnecessary to drag these proceedings...
13. In State of Maharashtra v Vikram Anantrai Doshi, (2014) 15 SCC 29, a bench of two learned Judges of this Court explained the earlier decisions and the principles which must govern in deciding whether a criminal proceeding involving a non-compoundable offence should be quashed. In that case, the respondents were alleged to have obtained Letters of Credit from a bank in favour of fictitious entities. The charge-sheet involved offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, and 471 read with Section 120-B of the Penal Code. Bogus beneficiary companies were alleged to have got them discounted by attaching fabricated bills. Mr Justice Dipak Misra (as the learned Chief Justice then was) emphasised that the case involved an allegation of forgery; hence the court was not dealing with a simple case where the accused had borrowed money from a bank, to divert it elsewhere. The court held that the manner in which Letters of Credit were issued and funds were siphoned off had a foundation in criminal law:
"26. ...... availing of money from a nationalized bank in the manner, as alleged by the investigating agency, vividly exposits fiscal impurity and, in a way, financial fraud. The modus operandi as narrated in the charge-sheet cannot be put in the compartment of an individual or personal wrong. It is a social wrong and it has immense societal impact. It is an accepted principle of handling of finance that whenever there is manipulation and cleverly conceived contrivance to avail of these kind of benefits it cannot be regarded as a case having overwhelmingly and predominatingly of civil Page 17 of 28 Uploaded by MR.AMIT HEMANTKUMAR SONAGARA(HCD0079) on Sat Nov 29 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 12 21:42:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/15200/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined character. The ultimate victim is the collective. It creates a hazard in the financial interest of the society. The gravity of the offence creates a dent in the economic spine of the nation."
The judgment of the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings was hence set aside by this Court.
14. The same principle was followed in Central Bureau of Investigation v Maninder Singh, (2016) 1 SCC 389 by a bench of two learned Judges of this Court. In that case, the High Court had, in the exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 quashed proceedings under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 120-B of the Penal Code. While allowing the appeal filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation Mr Justice Dipak Misra (as the learned Chief Justice then was) observed that the case involved allegations of forgery of documents to embezzle the funds of the bank. In such a situation, the fact that the dispute had been settled with the bank would not justify a recourse to the power under Section 482:
"17. ... In economic offences Court must not only keep in view that money has been paid to the bank which has been defrauded but also the society at large. It is not a case of simple assault or a theft of a trivial amount; but the offence with which we are concerned is well planned and was committed with a deliberate design with an eye of personal profit regardless of consequence to the society at large. To quash the proceeding merely on the ground that the accused has settled the amount with the bank would be a misplaced sympathy. If the prosecution against the economic offenders are not allowed to continue, the entire community is aggrieved."
15. In a subsequent decision in State of Tamil Nadu v R Vasanthi Stanley, (2016)1 SCC 376, the court Page 18 of 28 Uploaded by MR.AMIT HEMANTKUMAR SONAGARA(HCD0079) on Sat Nov 29 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 12 21:42:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/15200/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined rejected the submission that the first respondent was a woman "who was following the command of her husband and had signed certain documents without being aware of the nature of the fraud which was being perpetrated on the bank. Rejecting the submission, this Court held that:
"14.... Lack of awareness, knowledge or intent is neither to be considered nor accepted in economic offences. The submission assiduously presented on gender leaves us unimpressed. An offence under the criminal law is an offence and it does not depend upon the gender of an accused. True it is, there are certain provisions in Code of Criminal Procedure relating to exercise of jurisdiction Under Section 437, etc. therein but that altogether pertains to a different sphere. A person committing a murder or getting involved in a financial scam or forgery of documents, cannot claim discharge or acquittal on the ground of her gender as that is neither constitutionally nor statutorily a valid argument. The offence is gender neutral in this case. We say no more on this score
15. A grave criminal offence or serious economic offence or for that matter the offence that has the potentiality to create a dent in the financial health of the institutions, is not to be quashed on the ground that there is delay in trial or the principle that when the matter has been settled it should be quashed to avoid the load on the system."
16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions:
(i) Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of Page 19 of 28 Uploaded by MR.AMIT HEMANTKUMAR SONAGARA(HCD0079) on Sat Nov 29 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 12 21:42:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/15200/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court;
(ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.
(iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power;
(iv) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court;
(v) The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated;
(vi) In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving Page 20 of 28 Uploaded by MR.AMIT HEMANTKUMAR SONAGARA(HCD0079) on Sat Nov 29 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 12 21:42:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/15200/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences;
(vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;
(viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute;
(ix) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and
(x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) above.
Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act Page 21 of 28 Uploaded by MR.AMIT HEMANTKUMAR SONAGARA(HCD0079) on Sat Nov 29 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 12 21:42:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/15200/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.
17. Bearing in mind the above principles which have been laid down in the decisions of this Court, we are of the view that the High Court was justified in declining to entertain the application for quashing the First Information Report in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. The High Court has adverted to two significant circumstances. Each of them has a bearing on whether the exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482 to quash the FIR would sub serve or secure the ends of justice or prevent an abuse of the process of the court. The first is that the appellants were absconding and warrants had been issued against them under Section 70 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The second is that the appellants have criminal antecedents, reflected in the chart which has been extracted in the earlier part of this judgment. The High Court adverted to the modus operandi which had been followed by the appellants in grabbing valuable parcels of land and noted that in the past as well, they were alleged to have been connected with such nefarious activities by opening bogus bank accounts. It was in this view of the matter that the High Court observed that in a case involving extortion, forgery and conspiracy where all the appellants were acting as a team, it was not in the interest of society to quash the FIR on the ground that a settlement had been arrived at with the complainant. We agree with the view of the High Court."
8. Considering the allegations made in the impugned FIR, prima facie, the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence could not be ruled out. Thus, in view of the principle laid down in the aforesaid judgment and the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not Page 22 of 28 Uploaded by MR.AMIT HEMANTKUMAR SONAGARA(HCD0079) on Sat Nov 29 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 12 21:42:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/15200/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined find this to be a fit case where discretion under section 482 of Cr.P.C. could be exercised in favour of the petitioner.
9. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is dismissed."
7. Being agreed by and dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner had approached the Hon'ble Apex Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.13738 of 2023. The Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 01.08.2025 disposed of those proceedings. Thus, the aforesaid observations of this Court made in the order dated 02.05.2023 have attained finality. It is also pertinent to note that though the Hon'ble Apex Court had disposed of the proceedings before it mainly on the ground of the statement made by the private respondent that he has not given any consent for the settlement, the Hon'ble Apex Court did not grant any liberty to the petitioner to file an application afresh for the very same prayer which was made in the earlier application before this Court. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had also made a statement before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the petitioner would like to file an application seeking anticipate bail. It is sought to be argued on behalf of the petitioner that though the earlier application filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the CrPC was dismissed by this Court, the petitioner has all the right to file the present petition invoking the powers of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. It is pertinent to note that by filing the present petition, the petitioner has not invoked the powers of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of Page 23 of 28 Uploaded by MR.AMIT HEMANTKUMAR SONAGARA(HCD0079) on Sat Nov 29 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 12 21:42:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/15200/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined India alone. He has also sought to invoke the powers of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS which is parimateria Section 482 of the CrPC. It is also required to be noted that though the petitioner has invoked the Provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in the present petition, the prayer made by the petitioner in the present petition is similar to the prayer made by him in the earlier application. Therefore, the present petition is nothing but a mere change in the nomenclature of the petition. Therefore, entertaining the present petition would amount to reviewing the earlier order passed by this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.5593 of 2023 under the Provision of Section 403 of the BNSS, there is a clear bar against the powers of review in criminal proceedings. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment in case of M.C. Ravikumar versus D.S. Velmurugan and Others reported in 2025 INSC 888 has observed in para 14 and 15 as under:
"14. Furthermore, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the High Court in the second quashing petition amounted to review (plain and simple) of the earlier order passed by the co- ordinate bench of the High Court in the first quashing petition, since there was no change in admittedly circumstances and no new grounds/pleas became available to the accused- respondents, after passing of the order of dismissal in the first quashing petition. The order passed by the High Court is in gross disregard to all tenets of law as Section 362 CrPC expressly Page 24 of 28 Uploaded by MR.AMIT HEMANTKUMAR SONAGARA(HCD0079) on Sat Nov 29 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 12 21:42:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/15200/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined bars review of a judgment or final order disposing of a case except to correct some clerical or arithmetical error.
15. This Court has time and again held that the High Courts while exercising their inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC cannot override a specific bar laid down by other provisions of CrPC, i.e., to say that the High Court is not empowered to review its own decision under the purported exercise of its inherent powers. To fortify the aforesaid conclusion, we may gainfully refer to the observations made by this Court in the case of Simrikhia v. Dolley Mukherjee and Chhabi Mukherjee and Anr. 19, the relevant portions whereof are quoted below for ease of reference:
"6. In Superintendent & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs v.
Mohan Singh, (1975) 3 SCC 706, this Court held that Section 561A preserves the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as it deems fit to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice and the High Court must therefore exercise its inherent powers having regard to the situation prevailing at the particular point of time when its inherent jurisdiction is sought to be invoked. In that case the facts and circumstances obtaining at the time of the subsequent application were clearly Page 25 of 28 Uploaded by MR.AMIT HEMANTKUMAR SONAGARA(HCD0079) on Sat Nov 29 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 12 21:42:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/15200/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined different from what they were at the time of the earlier application. The question as to the scope and ambit of the inherent power of the High Court vis-a-vis an earlier order made by it was, therefore, not concluded by this decision.
7. The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be invoked to override bar of review u/s 362. It is clearly stated in Sooraj Devi v. Pyare Lal, (1981) 1 SCC 50 that the inherent power of the Court cannot be exercised for doing that which is specifically prohibited by the Code. The law is therefore clear that the inherent power cannot be exercised for doing that which cannot be done on account of the bar under other provisions of the Code. The court is not empowered to review its own decision under the purported exercise of inherent power. We find that the impugned order in this case is in effect one reviewing the earlier order on a reconsideration of the same materials. The High Court has grievously erred in doing so. Even on merits, we do not find any compelling reasons to quash the proceedings at that stage.""
8. As per the settled law, there is no explicit bar against the maintainability of the successive petition for quashing if there is a change in circumstances after the earlier application was disposed of. As discussed earlier, the only change between the earlier application and the present application is the change in Page 26 of 28 Uploaded by MR.AMIT HEMANTKUMAR SONAGARA(HCD0079) on Sat Nov 29 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 12 21:42:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/15200/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined nomenclature. Mere invocation of Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the present petition cannot be termed as any change making the present petition maintainable. It is not even the case of petitioner of any other change in circumstances after the dismissal of the earlier application. While filing the earlier application, the petitioner had pressed into service the ground of settlement arrived at between the parties for getting the FIR quashed. The grounds which are raised by the petitioner in the present petition were very much available to him at the time of hearing of the earlier application. However, for the reasons best known to the petitioner, no such grounds were canvassed during the hearing of the earlier application. Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with this aspect in its judgment in case of Bhisham Lal Verma versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in 2024 (15) SCC 282. In this judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held "It is not open to a person aggrieved to raise one plea after the other, by invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, though all such pleas were very much available even at the first instance. Permitting the filing of successive petitions under Section 482 CrPC ignoring this principle would enable an ingenious accused to effectively stall the proceedings against him to suit his own interest and convenience, by filing one petition after another under Section 482 CrPC, irrespective of where the cause, therefor arose. Such abuse of process cannot be permitted." These observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court fit absolutely to the facts of the present case. The conduct on the part of the petitioner in evading the process of investigation, even after dismissal of the application for anticipatory bail by this Court as Page 27 of 28 Uploaded by MR.AMIT HEMANTKUMAR SONAGARA(HCD0079) on Sat Nov 29 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 12 21:42:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/15200/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined well as by the Hon'ble Apex Court indicates that the petitioner is an ingenious accused. The only intention on the part of the petitioner in filing the present petition appears to be to derail the process of investigation going on against him. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment of Bhisham Lal (Supra), the petitioner is going on filing one application after the other either for anticipatory bail or for quashing with the aforesaid intention. As pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, the petitioner is having several other antecedents to his credit, which would further demonstrate the ingenuity on the part of the petitioner. It is also pertinent to note that as stated by the complainant before the Apex Court, he had not given any consent for quashing of the FIR. Thus, the fact of the settlement arrived at between the parties also appears to be sham and bogus.
9. Having regard to these facts, the present petition is devoid of any merit and hence the same is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(M. R. MENGDEY,J) AHS Page 28 of 28 Uploaded by MR.AMIT HEMANTKUMAR SONAGARA(HCD0079) on Sat Nov 29 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 12 21:42:37 IST 2025