Gujarat High Court
Gautam Chandubhai Thakar vs State Of Gujarat on 3 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/14361/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 14361
of 2025
============================================
GAUTAM CHANDUBHAI THAKAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
============================================
Appearance:
MR ANIL H RATHOD(9691) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 03/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
Learned Advocate Mr. Abhishek Khuman, state that he has instructions to appear on behalf of the original complainant, and thereby, seeks permission to file vakalatnama. The Registry is directed to accept the vakalatnama.
1) Rule. Learned Advocates waives service of rule for the respective respondents.
2) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, the petitioner has sought quashing of the judgment and order dated 01.04.2023, passed by the learned 8 th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot in Criminal Case No.7917 of 2020, by which the petitioner has been convicted and ordered to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay the amount of Rs.1,30,403.08 paisa towards compensation to the complainant and in default of payment of the said amount, the petitioner to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of six months and as the petitioner was not present when the judgment was pronounced, the learned Magistrate issued committal warrant Page 1 of 3 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Mon Nov 03 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 03 22:22:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/14361/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/11/2025 undefined against the petitioner.
3) The case of the complainant is that the accused took personal loan by signing loan agreement and other documents and gave assurance of paying regular installments. The accused also opted for Electronic Clearing System (ECS) and accordingly issued standing instructions to its banker debt of sum of Rs.1,30,403.38 paisa towards the equated monthly installment. But the accused failed to repay the said loan and ECS had regularly bounced due to which the complainant issued a memorandum to the accused on 28.02.2020, from the loan account for its clearance for Rs.1,30,403.38 paisa which was returned vide loan No.53314609 on 28.02.2020 by reason "Insufficient Funds. Therefore, the complainant issued legal notice dated 05.03.2020 through Registered Post A.D., which was served to the accused but the accused did not reply and also not paid the due amount. Therefore, the complainant has filed the present complaint being Criminal Case No.7917 of 2020, for the offence under Section 25 of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007.
4) It appears that the settlement has been arrived at between the complainant and present petitioner and the entire loan amount has been paid to the respondent complainant, which has been confirmed by Mr. Kiran Rajeshkumar Sukhadiya, authorized person of the complainant by Affidavit dated 03.11.2025, which is taken on record. The complainant is willing to compound the offence. The complainant in present in the Court and affirms the factum of settlement as well as filing of affidavit by him.
5) In case of Kripalsingh Pratapsingh Vs. Salvinder Kaur Hardisingh Lohana reported in (2004)2 GLH 544, the Coordinate Bench of this Court after considering various decisions of the Apex Court, took a view that it would be permissible for the Page 2 of 3 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Mon Nov 03 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 03 22:22:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/14361/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/11/2025 undefined High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code / Section 528 of the BNSS, to record the settlement arrived at between the parties, merely alternate remedy available is not a ground to refuse to compromise as offence is bailable and compoundable one.
6) Thus, taking into account the fact of settlement, the compounding of the offence is hereby permitted. However, considering the conduct of the petitioner as he belatedly entered into the settlement at the appellate stage the petitioner is required to be saddled with cost.
7) As a result, the petition is allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.13,040/- (i.e. 10% of the amount in question) by the petitioner to be deposited with the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority within a period of ONE WEEK from today. The judgment and order dated 01.04.2023, passed by the learned 8 th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot in Criminal Case No.7917 of 2020, and warrant issued by it are hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner is acquitted of the offences under the provisions of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007. Rule is made absolute to aforesaid extent. Direct service permitted.
8) If the petitioner fails to deposit the cost amount then the learned trial Court shall straightaway issue warrant for execution.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ANKIT JANSARI Page 3 of 3 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Mon Nov 03 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 03 22:22:50 IST 2025