BHARTIBEN KISHORBHAI PATEL vs STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR( — CR.MA/8302/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: --58-RULE ISSUED & RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @FH on 10th April 2026.
CNR: GJHC240250652026
Filing Number
CR.MA/14385/2026
Filing Date
01-04-2026
Registration No
CR.MA/8302/2026
Registration Date
07-04-2026
Judge
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL K. VYAS
Coram
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL K. VYAS
Bench Type
SINGLE
Category
900 - SJ - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023 ( 900 )
Sub-Category
2 - SJ - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023 - QUASHING OF COMPLAINT ( 2 )
Judicial Branch
JUDICIAL
Decision Date
10th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
--58-RULE ISSUED & RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @FH
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
BHARTIBEN KISHORBHAI PATEL
Adv. MR ANAND M RANPARA(
Respondent(s)
STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(
MITRAJSINH ANILSINH JADEJA
Hearing History
Judge: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL K. VYAS
529-FOR ADMISSION
3600-FRESH MATTERS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 07-04-2026 | 529-FOR ADMISSION |
| 10-04-2026 | 3600-FRESH MATTERS |
Orders
REGISTRAR (JUDICIAL)
Summary The Gujarat High Court allowed the applicant's petition and quashed the FIR and chargesheet filed under the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020. The court found that the underlying land dispute between the parties had been amicably resolved through an out-of-court settlement, evidenced by a Memorandum of Understanding dated 24.03.2026 and a registered sale deed, with the complainant expressing no objection to quashing the proceedings. The court held that continuing the criminal trial would constitute abuse of process of law and unnecessary harassment, warranting dismissal in the interests of justice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Gujarat High Court allowed the applicant's petition and quashed the FIR and chargesheet filed under the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020. The court found that the underlying land dispute between the parties had been amicably resolved through an out-of-court settlement, evidenced by a Memorandum of Understanding dated 24.03.2026 and a registered sale deed, with the complainant expressing no objection to quashing the proceedings. The court held that continuing the criminal trial would constitute abuse of process of law and unnecessary harassment, warranting dismissal in the interests of justice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts