Gujarat High Court
Patel Yogeshbhai Kikubhai vs State Of Gujarat on 1 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8620/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONSENT QUASHING) NO.
8620 of 2025
==========================================================
PATEL YOGESHBHAI KIKUBHAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR N P CHAUDHARY(3980) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR CHINTAN DAVE, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR MAHESH P PATEL for the Respondent No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 01/05/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Learned advocate Mr. Mahesh P. Patel 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 application, the
applicant seeks to invoke inherent jurisdiction of this
Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing and setting aside
the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated
25.11.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Chansma in Criminal Case No.1163 of 2024 and
terminating all the proceedings arising thereunder qua
the petitioner.
3. Rule. Learned advocates for the respective
respondents waive service.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8620/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2025
undefined
total cheque amount has been paid to the complainant
and the complainant has no grievance now. Respondent
No. 2 - original complainant is present in the Court
and is identified by learned advocate Mr. Patel. 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
25.11.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Chansma in Criminal Case No.1163 of 2024 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.
7. Since the compounding between the parties is
arrived at this stage before this Court, a cost in
required to be imposed on the petitioner in view of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8620/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2025
undefined
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 of
the petitioner has tendered an undertaking of the
petitioner wherein he has shown his willingness to
deposit the amount of cost that may be imposed by
this Court.
9. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed
subject to deposit of 10% of the cheque amount with
the High Court Legal Services Committee within a
period of two weeks from today. Rule is made absolute
to the aforesaid extent. Direct service permitted.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J)
LAVKUMAR J JANI
