Gujarat High Court
Ashraf Haji Salim Mansuri vs State Of Gujarat on 18 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/2388/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (FOR CONSENT QUASHING) NO.
2388 of 2025
==========================================================
ASHRAF HAJI SALIM MANSURI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
VASIMRAJA A KURESHI(8609) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR NIRAJ SHARMA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 18/02/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Learned advocate Mr. A. R. Saiyed submits that
he has received 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. RULE. Learned APP Mr. Niraj Sharma waives
service of rule on behalf of respondent No.1 - State.
Learned advocate Mr. A. R. Saiyed waives service of
rule on behalf of respondent No.2 - original
complainant.
3. Heard learned advocates for the appearing
parties.
4. Learned advocates appearing for the parties
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/2388/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2025
undefined
have jointly submitted that the matter is amicably
settled between the parties and an affidavit to that
effect is also filed by the respondent No.2 -
original complainant, wherein he has specifically
stated that the matter is amicably settled between
the parties and therefore if the impugned judgments
and orders of conviction arising out of the impugned
complainant are quashed and set aside, he has no
objection. Respondent No.2 - original complainant is
also present and when inquired by this Court, he has
stated that the matter is amicably settled between
the parties. Learned advocate Mr. A. R. Saiyed has
identified him.
5. This petition is filed by the petitioner -
accused for quashing and setting aside the judgment
and order dated 18.10.2024 passed by the learned 12th
Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Criminal
Appeal No.117 of 2023 as well as judgment and order
dated 31.01.2023 passed by learned 26th Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara in Criminal Case
No.27734 of 2019 qua 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/2388/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2025
undefined
impugned judgment and order of conviction and
sentence dated 31.01.2023 passed by learned 26th
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara in
Criminal Case No.27734 of 2019 and confirmed by
learned 12th Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara vide
judgment and order dated 18.10.2024 passed in
Criminal Appeal No.117 of 2023, are hereby quashed
and set aside.
7. In view of sub-section (8) of Section 320 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant
is acquitted of the charge leveled against him.
8. 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.
9. 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, which is to be
deposited before the Gujarat State Legal Services
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/2388/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2025
undefined
Authority within a period of four (04) weeks from
today. If the petitioner fails to deposit the said
amount within the time prescribed, as aforesaid, he
shall be taken into custody by issuing non-bailable
warrant by the learned trial Court and the present
order shall stand automatically recalled and he would
serve the sentence.
10. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed.
Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct
service today is permitted.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J)
LAVKUMAR J JANI
