Gajjar Satishbhai Hargovinddas Prop. ... vs State Of Gujarat

Gujarat High Court

Gajjar Satishbhai Hargovinddas Prop. ... vs State Of Gujarat on 3 April, 2025

                                                                                                          NEUTRAL CITATION




                             R/SCR.A/4595/2025                              ORDER DATED: 03/04/2025

                                                                                                           undefined




                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                         R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (FOR CONSENT QUASHING) NO.
                                                 4595 of 2025

                       ==========================================================
                                  GAJJAR SATISHBHAI HARGOVINDDAS PROP. OF PRIYAL
                                                  CONSTRUCTION
                                                       Versus
                                              STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MR DK CHAUDHARI(5361) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
                       MR ROHAN N SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                       ==========================================================

                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI

                                                        Date : 03/04/2025

                                                          ORAL ORDER

1. Learned advocate Mr. Bhavik A. Patel submits that he has got instructions to appear on behalf of respondent No.2 - original complainant. She is permitted to file his Vakalatnama in the Registry. Registry to accept the same.

2. By way of preferring present petition, the petitioner seeks to invoke extra-ordinary and inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 13.03.2025 passed by learned 9th Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahesana in Criminal Case No.5680 of 2022 and terminating all the proceedings arising thereunder qua the petitioner.

NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/4595/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/04/2025 undefined

3. Rule. Learned advocates for the respective respondents waive service.

4. Learned advocate Mr. D.K. Chaudhari for the petitioner states that total cheque amount has been paid to the complainant and the complainant has no grievance now. Respondent No. 2 - original complainant is present before the Court and is identified by learned advocate Mr. Bhavik A. Patel. The learned advocate for the respondent No. 2 - original complainant states that the complainant has received the total cheque amount and the complainant does not want to pursue the matter now in view of amicable settlement and has given consent for compounding the offence. The complainant also filed an affidavit to that effect, which is placed on record.

5. Now, since matter is settled between the parties and due amount is paid to respondent No.2 - complainant and in view of the fact that offence under the N.I Act is now made compoundable, it is to be encouraged. Considering the affidavit, it is clear that the compounding is genuine, and therefore, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 13.03.2025 passed by learned 9 th Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahesana in Criminal Case No.5680 of 2022 is hereby quashed and set aside.

6. In view of sub-section (8) of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner is acquitted of the charge leveled against her.

NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/4595/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/04/2025 undefined

7. Since the compounding between the parties is arrived at this stage before this Court, the petitioner is required to be imposed cost in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal reported in AIR 2010 SC 1907. As per the said decision, the petitioner is required to deposit 15% of the cheque amount. However, in view of para 17 of the said judgment, a discretion is granted to the competent Court to reduce the amount of cost or waive the same on specific facts and circumstances of a case.

8. Considering the reasons given by learned advocate for the petitioner, instead of imposing 15% of the cheque amount as cost, I deem it fit to impose 10% of the awarded amount towards cost and the same shall be be deposited before the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority with in a period of two weeks. The undertaking filed by the applicant is ordered to be taken on record.

9. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service permitted.

(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J) A. B. VAGHELA Page 3 of 3 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Mon Apr 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 07 21:51:14 IST 2025