Gujarat High Court
Purabiya Kamlesh Nathubhai vs State Of Gujarat on 16 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7605/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONSENT QUASHING) NO. 7605
of 2025
==========================================================
PURABIYA KAMLESH NATHUBHAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MANAN V PATEL(8059) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR TRUPESH KATHIRIYA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 16/04/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Learned advocate Mr. T.M. Mandli 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 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for
quashing and setting aside the judgment and order of
conviction and sentence dated 16.08.2024 passed by learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palanpur, District Banaskantha in
Criminal Case No.6409 of 2021 and terminating all the
proceedings arising thereunder qua the petitioner.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7605/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2025
undefined
3. Rule. Learned advocates for the respective respondents
waive service.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Manan Patel for the petitioner
states that total cheque amount has been paid to the
complainant and the complainant has no grievance now.
Respondent No. 2 - original complainant is present before the
Court and is identified by learned advocate Mr. T.M. Mandli.
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. 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 16.08.2024 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Palanpur, District Banaskantha in Criminal Case No.6409 of
2021 is hereby quashed and set aside.
6. 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7605/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2025
undefined
7. Since the compounding between the parties is arrived at
this stage before this Court, the petitioner is required to be
imposed cost in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal
reported in 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.
8. Considering the reasons given by learned advocate for
the petitioner, instead of imposing 15% of the cheque amount
as cost, I deem it fit to impose 10% of the cheque amount as
cost. Learned advocate Mr. Manan Patel has tendered a copy
of undertaking filed by the petitioner, wherein, the petitioner
submits that he is ready and willing to deposit 10% amount of
total cheque amount before the Hon'ble Court. An undertaking
filed by the petitioner is ordered to be taken on record.
The petitioner herein is directed to deposit 10% amount
of the total cheque amount before the Gujarat State Legal
Services Authority.
9. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. Rule is made
absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service permitted.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J)
A. B. VAGHELA
