Sanjay Balkrishna Gaur vs State Of Gujarat
2025 Latest Caselaw 660 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Sanjay Balkrishna Gaur vs State Of Gujarat on 8 July, 2025

                                                                                                             NEUTRAL CITATION




                              R/SCR.A/3125/2025                               ORDER DATED: 08/07/2025

                                                                                                              undefined




                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                          R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (FOR CONSENT QUASHING) NO.
                                                  3125 of 2025

                        ==========================================================
                                                      SANJAY BALKRISHNA GAUR
                                                               Versus
                                                      STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
                        ==========================================================
                        Appearance:
                        MR ISHAN H RAJDEV(11634) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
                        MR MAULIK H SAYANI(13659) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
                        MS KRINA CALLA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                        ==========================================================

                           CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                                                          Date : 08/07/2025
                                                           ORAL ORDER

1. RULE. Learned advocates waive service of notice of rule on behalf of the respective respondents.

2. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and since it is jointly stated at the Bar by learned advocates on both the sides that the dispute between the parties has been resolved amicably, this matter is taken up for final disposal forthwith.

3. By way of this application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the applicant has prayed to quash and set aside the judgment dated 01.05.2024 passed by the learned 9th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot at Exhibit 20 in Criminal Case No.3443 of 2021 as well as all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/3125/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2025

undefined

4. Learned advocate for the applicants submits that the applicants have nothing to do with the offence and they are falsely implicated in the offence. However, the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, and they have no objection if the complaint is quashed. Therefore, the application may be allowed.

5. Learned advocates for the respective parties submitted that during the pendency of proceedings, the parties have settled the dispute amicably and pursuant to such mutual settlement, the original complainant has also filed an Affidavit, which is taken / placed on record. In the Affidavit, the original complainant have categorically stated that the dispute with the applicant has been resolved amicably and that he has no objection, if the present proceedings are quashed and set aside since there is no surviving grievance between them.

6. Having heard the learned advocates on both sides and considering the documents on record, it appears that respondent No. 2 had filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 25 of the Payments and Settlements Systems Act, 2007, which later culminated into Criminal Case No. 3443 of 2021. Respondent No. 2 filed the said complaint after the petitioner had availed a loan from the respondent-bank in the form of a credit card to the tune of Rs. 72,688/-, and the petitioner had opted for the CS facility, which meant that the said funds would be auto-debited from the petitioner's account. However, the transaction was returned with the endorsement "Funds Insufficient," upon which respondent No. 2 issued a notice.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/3125/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2025

undefined

Thereafter, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot found the petitioner guilty and convicted him under Section 25 of the said Act, sentencing him to six months of simple imprisonment and directing him to pay an amount of Rs. 72,688/- to respondent No. 2, failing which the petitioner would be liable to undergo a further period of one month of simple imprisonment. However, the matter has now been amicably settled between the parties, and the petitioner has agreed to pay a one-time settlement amount of Rs. 40,000/-. In this regard, the authorized officer of respondent No. 2 (HDFC Bank) has filed an affidavit stating that the matter has been settled and that the bank has received the agreed settlement amount. As the matter has now been amicably settled between the parties, no fruitful purpose would be served by proceeding further with the matter.

7. In view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of (i) Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, (ii) Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582, (iii) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 31, (iv) Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Ors., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 190 and (v) Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in 2014 (2) Crime 67 (SC), in the opinion of this Court, the further continuation of criminal proceedings against the applicant/s in relation to the impugned FIR would cause unnecessary harassment to the applicant/s. Further, the continuance of trial pursuant to the mutual settlement arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise. Hence, to secure the ends of justice, it would be appropriate to quash and set

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/3125/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2025

undefined

aside the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C./ 528 of BNSS.

8. In the aforesaid backdrop, complaint is filed. It is necessary to consider whether the power conferred by the High Court under section 528 of BNSS/482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is warranted. It is true that the powers under Section 528 of BNSS/482 Cr.P.C are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Ravi Shankar Srivastava, IAS & Anr., reported in AIR 2006 SC 2872.

9. In the result, the application is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 01.05.2024 passed by the learned 9 th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot at Exhibit 20 in

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/3125/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2025

undefined

Criminal Case No. 3443 of 2021, as well as all consequential proceedings initiated pursuant thereto, are hereby quashed and set aside, subject to the petitioner depositing 10% of the one- time settlement amount before the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority i.e. Rs.4,000/- (four thousand). Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted. If the applicant is in jail, the jail authority concerned is directed to release the applicant forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case.

(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ALI