Gujarat High Court
Rajesh Atmaram Patel vs Dineshbhai Mangaldas Solanki on 21 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/23221/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONSENT QUASHING) NO.
23221 of 2025
==========================================================
RAJESH ATMARAM PATEL
Versus
DINESHBHAI MANGALDAS SOLANKI & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR GG TRIVEDI(3565) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS KRINA CALLA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL K. VYAS
Date : 21/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Learned advocate Mr. Hemant Raval appears and submits that he has instructions to appear on behalf of the respondent no.1 - complainant. He is permitted to file his appearance. Registry shall accept his vakalatnama.
2. By way of preferring the present application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the applicant-accused seeks to invoke the inherent powers of this Court, praying to quash and set- aside the order dated 12.05.2023 passed by the learned Presiding Officer Special Court (N.I. Act), Ahmedabad (Rural) Mirzapur, in Criminal Case No.8532 of 2016, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as well as all other consequential proceedings arising pursuant thereto.
3. Today, when the matter is called out, the complainant, who is personally present before this Court, has produced his identity proof as well as the affidavit which are ordered to be taken on record. In the said affidavit, the complainant has categorically stated that he Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by DEEPAK GEHLOT(HC02361) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 22 00:35:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/23221/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined has received his dues and the dispute has been amicably resolved. The complainant has further stated that he has no grievance or ill- will against the applicant.
4. Considering the issue involved in the present application as well as considering the fact that the dispute has been amicably resolved between the parties, with the consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the present application is taken up for final disposal.
5. RULE returnable forthwith. Learned APP Ms. Krina Calla waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent no.2 - State and learned advocate Mr. Hemant Raval waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent no.1 - complainant.
6. The complainant, who is present in the Court, has categorically stated before this Court that the dispute has been resolved and he has no objection if the application is allowed and the impugned order is quashed and set-aside.
7. The relevant paragraph of the affidavit reads thus :
" 3. There is no any dispute with them. Even it is purely a personal dispute between the friends and matter is of business amount. Even there is no harm to the society. Therefore due to intervene of relatives and other persons of area she does not want to continue her complainant.
4. Therefore also conviction passed in Criminal Case No. 8532/2016 U/s 138 of N.I.Act. before the Ld. Presiding Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by DEEPAK GEHLOT(HC02361) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 22 00:35:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/23221/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined Officer, Special Court( N.I.Act.), Ahmedabad (Rural) Mirjapur on dated 12-05-2023. The said case has been completed and the petitioner has been convicted for 1 year S.I. and also to pay the Rs. 3,65,000/-. If he is unable to pay in 60 days he has to under go more 2 months S.I. Thereafter present petitioner i.e accused has filed Criminal Appeal No. 83/2023 in the said appeal Ho'ble 11th Addl. District and Session Court, Ahmedabad (Rural), has confirmed the judgment passed by the Presiding Officer, Special Court, (N.I. Act) Ahmedabad (Rural) on dated 18- 08-2025 is quashed than complaint has no problem. Therefore kindly in interest of justice it may be quashed and setaside by this Hon'ble High Court.".
8. Thus, it appears from the aforesaid that to continue further with the proceedings pursuant to the impugned order would be a futile exercise and the same would amount to abuse of process of law.
9. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties as well as considering the facts and circumstances arising out of the present application and taking into consideration the decisions rendered in the cases of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Another, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582, Nikhil Merchant vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, reported in (2009) 1 GLH 31, Manoj Sharma vs. State & Others, reported in (2009) 1 GLH 190, and Narinder Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab & Another, reported in (2014) 2 Crime 67 (SC) as well as State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal, reported in AIR 1992 SC 604, it appears that continuing further with the proceedings Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by DEEPAK GEHLOT(HC02361) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 22 00:35:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/23221/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined pursuant to the impugned order would be a futile exercise and the same would amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, to secure the ends of justice, the impugned order and all other consequential proceedings arising pursuant thereto are required to be quashed and set-aside in exercise of the powers conferred 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
10. In the result, the application is allowed. The order dated 12.05.2023 passed by the learned Presiding Officer Special Court (N.I. Act), Ahmedabad (Rural) Mirzapur, in Criminal Case No.8532 of 2016, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as well as all other consequential proceedings arising pursuant thereto are hereby ordered to be quashed and set-aside qua the applicant.
11. In view of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjabij Tari Vs. Kishore S. Borcar [2025 INSC 1158], the applicant is directed to deposit 7.5 % of the cheque amount, by way of costs, with the District Legal Service Authority, Ahmedabad, within a period of 2 weeks from the date of this order.
12. Rule made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(VIMAL K. VYAS, J) DEEPAK GEHLOT Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by DEEPAK GEHLOT(HC02361) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 22 00:35:18 IST 2025