Gujarat High Court
Imtiyazbhai Abdulrehman Vahora vs State Of Gujarat on 7 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/6083/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (FOR CONSENT QUASHING) NO.
6083 of 2025
==========================================================
IMTIYAZBHAI ABDULREHMAN VAHORA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
DARSHIT R BRAHMBHATT(8011) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR MANAN MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 07/05/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Learned advocate Mr. Chirag Brahmbhatt submits that he has got instructions to appear on behalf of respondent No.2 - original complainant. He 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 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 09.09.2024 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kheda in Criminal Case No.388 of 2013 as well as judgment and order dated 17.03.2025 passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 03:30:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/6083/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2025 undefined Judge, Nadiad in Criminal Appeal No. 524 of 2024, whereby, the learned Appellate Court has upheld the judgment and order of conviction of the petitioner, and terminating all the proceedings arising thereunder qua the petitioner.
3. Rule. Learned advocates for the respective respondents waive service.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that total cheque amount has been paid to the complainant and the complainant has no grievance now. Respondent No. 2 - original complainant is present and identified by learned advocate Mr. Chirag Brahmbhatt. 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. Learned advocate Mr. Darshit Brahmbhatt submits that petitioner has preferred an appeal assailing the judgment and order of conviction before the learned Appellate Court and at that relevant point of time, the learned Appellate Court has directed the petitioner to deposit 15% of the cheque amount before the said Court. The petitioner, therefore, deposited 15% of the cheque amount, which is still lying before the said Court. He, Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 03:30:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/6083/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2025 undefined therefore, submits that petitioner may be allowed to withdraw the said amount. Learned advocate Mr. Chirag Brahmbhatt for the respondent No.2 - original complainant has candidly submitted that complainant has no objection if the said amount is allowed to be withdrawn by the petitioner.
6. 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 09.09.2024 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kheda in Criminal Case No.388 of 2013 as well as judgment and order dated 17.03.2025 passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiad in Criminal Appeal No. 524 of 2024, are hereby quashed and set aside.
7. 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 him.
8. Since the compounding between the parties is arrived at this stage before this Court, a cost in required to be imposed on the petitioner in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal reported in Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 03:30:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/6083/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2025 undefined 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.
9. Learned advocate of the petitioner has tendered an undertaking of the petitioner wherein he has shown his willingness to deposit 15% of the cheque amount.
10. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed subject to deposit of 15% of the cheque amount with the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority within a period of four weeks from today.
11. Since the matter is settled, the learned Appellate Court is directed to return back the amount of Rs.1,05,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Five Thousand only) which the petitioner has deposited before the said Court within a period of two weeks, after due verification.
12. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service permitted.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J) LAVKUMAR J JANI Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 03:30:19 IST 2025