Gujarat High Court
Jayantibhai Joitabhai Chaudhari vs State Of Gujarat on 10 July, 2025
Author: Nirzar S. Desai
Bench: Nirzar S. Desai
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12217/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONSENT QUASHING)
NO. 12217 of 2025
=====================================================
JAYANTIBHAI JOITABHAI CHAUDHARI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
=====================================================
Appearance:
TAHIR S SAIYED(8983) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR RONAK RAVAL ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
=====================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 10/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard the learned advocates appearing for
the respective parties. Learned advocate Mr.
Omprakash Baghel states that he has an instructions
to appear for the respondent No.2 - complainant. He
is permitted to file her 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12217/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
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 as "BNSS"), the applicant
has prayed for quashing and setting aside judgment
and order dated 25.03.2025 passed by learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Palanpur, District : Banaskantha
in Criminal Case No.4915 of 2024 by which the
applicant came to be convicted under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12217/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
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.40,000/- towards the
cost before the registry of this Court within a
period of six weeks from 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 respondent No.2 - Yashika Nikkam D/o. Mahesh
Nikkam - Authorized Legal Attorney of Cholamandalam
Investment and Finance Company Limited dated
3.7.2025. Respondent No.2 is present in person before
the Court and are identified by learned advocate for
respondent No.2. On inquiry made by the Court, he has
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12217/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
declared before this Court that he 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. He also submitted that he
has no 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, 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,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12217/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
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 dated 25.03.2025
passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Palanpur, District : Banaskantha in Criminal Case
No.4915 of 2024 is hereby quashed and set aside qua
the applicant on condition that the applicant shall
deposit a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards the cost before
the Registry of this Court within a period of six
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 only upon deposit of the amount directed
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12217/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
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)
Pallavi
