Gujarat High Court
Naimish Dhirendrabhai Manek vs State Of Gujarat on 7 July, 2025
Author: Nirzar S. Desai
Bench: Nirzar S. Desai
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12911/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (FOR CONSENT QUASHING)
NO.12911 of 2025
==========================================================
NAIMISH DHIRENDRABHAI MANEK
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance :
MR HIRENKUMAR M NIYALCHANDANI for the Applicant.
MR HARDIK MEHTA, APP for the Respondent No.1
MR SHATRUGHNA SONI for the Respondent No.2.
=========================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 07/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties. Learned advocate Mr. Shatrughna Soni states
that he has an instructions to appear for the respondent No.2 -
complainant. He is permitted to file his appearance forthwith.
2. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as
learned advocate appearing for the Complainant waive service of
Rule on behalf of the respective respondents.
3. Considering the issue involved in the present
application and with consent of the learned advocates appearing
for the respective parties as well as considering the fact that the
dispute amongst the applicant and respondent No.2 has been
resolved amicably, this application is taken up for final disposal
forthwith.
4. By way of this application under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12911/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/07/2025
undefined
as "BNSS"), the applicant has prayed for quashing and setting
aside judgment and order dated4.1.2025 passed by learned 2 nd
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot in Criminal Case
No.12142 of 2023 by which the applicant came to be convicted
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and was
sentenced to simple imprisonment of one year. The applicant was
also directed to pay cheque amount of 1,35,508/- to the
complainant within a period of one month failing which the
applicant was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a
further period of six months.
5. Learned advocate for the applicant has taken this Court
through the factual matrix arising out of the present application. At
the outset, it is submitted that the parties have amicably resolved
the issue and therefore, any further continuance of the proceedings
pursuant to the impugned FIR as well as any further proceedings
arising therefrom would create hardship to the applicant. It is
submitted that respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit in these
proceedings and has declared that the dispute between the
applicant and respondent No.2 is resolved due to intervention of
trusted persons of the society. It is further submitted that in view of
the fact that the dispute is resolved, the trial would be futile and
any further continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse
of process of law. It is therefore submitted that this Court may
exercise its inherent powers conferred under Section 528 of the
BNSS and allow the application as prayed for.
Learned advocate for the applicant, upon instructions,
states that the applicant is ready and willing to deposit a sum of
Rs.20,000/- (being 15% of the cheque amount) towards the cost
before the registry of this Court within a period of four weeks from
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12911/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/07/2025
undefined
today.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
State has opposed the present application and submitted that
considering the seriousness of the offence, the complaint in
question may not be quashed and the present application may be
rejected.
7. Learned advocate for respondent No.2 has reiterated
the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the applicant.
The learned advocate for respondent No.2 also relied upon the
affidavit filed by Dharaben Paragbhai Goda dated 19.6.2025.
Respondent No.2 is present in person before the Court and is
identified by learned advocate for respondent No.2. On inquiry
made by the Court, she has declared before this Court that she has
received the cheque amount from the applicant and that the
dispute between them is resolved due to intervention of trusted
persons of the society and therefore, now the grievance stands
redressed. She also submitted that she does not have any objection
if the impugned judgment convicting the present applicant is
quashed. It is therefore submitted that the present application may
be allowed.
8. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties, considering the facts and circumstances arising
out of the present application as well as taking into consideration
the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases
of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., 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 & Anr., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 31,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12911/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/07/2025
undefined
Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Ors., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 190
and Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported
in 2014 (2) Crime 67 (SC), it appears that further continuation of
criminal proceedings in relation to the impugned FIR against the
applicant would be unnecessary harassment to the applicant. I
have also considered the latest decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai
Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others v. State of Gujarat,
Criminal Appeal No.1723 of 2017 dated 4.10.2017 and the
guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said
decision, particularly paragraph 15. Considering the nature of
disputes between the parties which are all private in nature, I am
of the opinion that the matter requires consideration. It appears
that the trial would be futile and further continuance of the
proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR would amount to abuse
of process of law and hence, to secure the ends of justice, the
impugned FIR is required to be quashed and set aside in exercise
of powers conferred under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
9. Resultantly, this application is allowed and the
impugned judgment and order dated4.1.2025 passed by learned 2 nd
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot in Criminal Case
No.12142 of 2023 is hereby quashed and set aside qua the
applicant on condition that the applicant shall deposit a sum
of Rs.20,000/- towards the cost before the Registry of this
Court within a period of four weeks from today. The applicant
is also directed to file an undertaking to the above effect before the
Registry of this Court within a period of one week from today.
It is made clear that this order shall come into force
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12911/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/07/2025
undefined
only upon deposit of the amount directed above and production of
receipt thereof. Upon deposit of the above amount of cost with the
Registry of this Court, the Registry is directed to disburse the said
amount of cost in favour of Gujarat State Legal Services Authority
forthwith.
Accordingly, Rule is made absolute. Direct service is
permitted.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J)
SAVARIYA
