Gujarat High Court
Dhruv Textile Thro Jigneshkumar ... vs State Of Gujarat on 18 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/10643/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (FOR CONSENT
QUASHING) NO. 10643 of 2025
============================================
DHRUV TEXTILE THRO JIGNESHKUMAR BABULAL PATEL & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
============================================
Appearance:
MR VICKY B MEHTA(5422) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR ADITYA JADEJA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 18/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
Learned Advocate Mr. Dip V. Amin, 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 Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, the petitioners have sought quashing of the judgment and order dated 18.03.2025, passed by the learned 12 th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat in Criminal Case No.21325 of 2021, by which the petitioner no.2 has been convicted and ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay the amount of Rs.1,47,366/- towards fine and in default of payment of fine, the petitioner no.2 to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of six months and as the petitioner no.2 Page 1 of 3 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Sat Sep 20 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 22:25:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/10643/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined was not present when the judgment was pronounced, the learned Magistrate issued warrant against the petitioner no.2.
3) It appears that the settlement has been arrived at between the complainant and present petitioner and the entire cheque amount has been paid to the respondent complainant, which has been confirmed by the complainant by Affidavit at Annexure - C. The complainant do not wish to proceed further and is willing to compound the offence. Accordingly, the petitioner by filing this petition, seeks compounding of the offence under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
4) The petitioner also submits that the petitioner is willing to deposit costs as directed by the Supreme Court in case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H., reported in (2010) 5 SCC 633, with the Legal Service Authority. 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 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.
7) As a result, the petition is allowed. The judgment and order dated 18.03.2025, passed by the learned 12 th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat in Criminal Case No.21325 of 2021, and warrant Page 2 of 3 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Sat Sep 20 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 22:25:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/10643/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined issued by it are hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner no.2 is acquitted of the offences under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner no.2 is directed to deposit 15% of the cheque amount (Rs.73,683/-) i.e. Rs.11,053/- with the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority within a period of one week from the date of receipt of this order. Rule is made absolute to aforesaid extent. Direct service permitted. If the petitioner no.2 is in jail, the jail authority concerned is directed to release him forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ANKIT Page 3 of 3 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Sat Sep 20 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 22:25:37 IST 2025