Gujarat High Court
Dharmeshbhai Arvindbhai Mokani vs State Of Gujarat on 18 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/7832/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (FOR CONSENT QUASHING) NO.
7832 of 2025
==========================================================
DHARMESHBHAI ARVINDBHAI MOKANI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VIRAT G POPAT(3710) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 18/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Learned advocate Ms. Anu Patel states that she has instructions to appear on behalf of the original complainant and thereby, seeks permission to file her Vakalatnama, which is granted. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
2. RULE. Learned advocates waive service of notice of rule on behalf of the respective respondents.
3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and since it is jointly stated at the Bar by learned advocates on both the sides that the dispute between the parties has been resolved amicably, this matter is taken up for final disposal forthwith.
4. By way of this application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the applicant has prayed to quash and set aside the judgment and order of conviction dated 20.11.2024 passed by learned Small Cause Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Mon Jul 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 21 21:43:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/7832/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/07/2025 undefined Judge, Surat in Criminal Case No.16935 of 2014 as well as all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
5. Learned advocate for the applicants submits that the applicants have nothing to do with the offence and they are falsely implicated in the offence. However, the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, and they have no objection if the complaint is quashed. Therefore, the application may be allowed.
6. Learned advocates for the respective parties submitted that during the pendency of proceedings, the parties have settled the dispute amicably and pursuant to such mutual settlement, the original complainant has also filed an Affidavit, which is taken / placed on record. In the Affidavit, the original complainant have categorically stated that the dispute with the applicant has been resolved amicably and that he has no objection, if the present proceedings are quashed and set aside since there is no surviving grievance between them.
7. Having heard the learned advocates on both sides and considering the documents on record, it appears that The petitioner is engaged in the business of importing machinery from China on client orders. Respondent No. 2 (complainant) placed an order for six machines and paid an advance of Rs. 6,00,000/- on 21.07.2023. After the machines arrived at the port on 28.07.2023, the complainant paid an additional Rs. 11,00,000/- for their release and further paid Rs. 21,00,000/- on 16.10.2023. The petitioner released five machines using the Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Mon Jul 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 21 21:43:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/7832/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/07/2025 undefined complainant's license but delivered only four machines despite full payment. As per Bill Order No. 23, the price per machine was Rs. 5,80,000/-. The complainant demanded a refund for the two machines not received, and the petitioner issued two cheques of Rs. 6,00,000/- each dated 21.10.2013. Both cheques were dishonoured on 23.10.2013 due to insufficient funds. The complainant, after informing the petitioner, re-deposited the cheques on 01.01.2014, but they were again dishonoured. The complainant issued a legal notice on 16.01.2014, which was returned as "Refused" on 21.01.2014. Despite service, the petitioner did not respond or comply. Consequently, the complainant filed Criminal Case No. 16935 of 2014, in which the petitioner was convicted by the trial court. However, the matter has now been amicably settled between the parties, and the petitioner has agreed to pay the entire cheque amount to the complainant. In this regard, the authorized officer of the bank- complainant has filed an affidavit stating that the matter has been settled and that the bank has received the agreed settlement amount. As the matter has now been amicably settled between the parties, no fruitful purpose would be served by proceeding further with the matter.
8. In view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of (i) Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, (ii) Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582, (iii) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 31, (iv) Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Ors., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 190 and (v) Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Mon Jul 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 21 21:43:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/7832/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/07/2025 undefined Punjab & Anr. reported in 2014 (2) Crime 67 (SC), in the opinion of this Court, the further continuation of criminal proceedings against the applicant/s in relation to the impugned FIR would cause unnecessary harassment to the applicant/s. Further, the continuance of trial pursuant to the mutual settlement arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise. Hence, to secure the ends of justice, it would be appropriate to quash and set aside the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C./528 of BNSS.
9. In the aforesaid backdrop, complaint is filed. It is necessary to consider whether the power conferred by the High Court under section 528 of BNSS/482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is warranted. It is true that the powers under Section 528 of BNSS/482 Cr.P.C are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage as the Hon'ble Supreme Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Mon Jul 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 21 21:43:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/7832/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/07/2025 undefined Court has decided in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Ravi Shankar Srivastava, IAS & Anr., reported in AIR 2006 SC 2872.
10. In the result, the application is allowed. The impugned order of conviction dated 20.11.2024 passed by learned Small Cause Judge, Surat in Criminal Case No.16935 of 2014, as well as all consequential proceedings initiated pursuant thereto, are hereby quashed and set aside, subject to the petitioner depositing 15% of the cheque amount before the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority i.e. Rs.1,80,000/- (One Lakh Eighty Thousand Rupees Only). Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted. If the applicant is in jail, the jail authority concerned is directed to release the applicant forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ALI Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Mon Jul 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 21 21:43:52 IST 2025