Gujarat High Court
Gautam Chandubhai Thakar vs State Of Gujarat on 3 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/14361/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 14361
of 2025
============================================
GAUTAM CHANDUBHAI THAKAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
============================================
Appearance:
MR ANIL H RATHOD(9691) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 03/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
Learned Advocate Mr. Abhishek Khuman, state that he has
instructions to appear on behalf of the original complainant, and
thereby, seeks permission to file vakalatnama. The Registry is
directed to accept the vakalatnama.
1) Rule. Learned Advocates waives service of rule for the respective
respondents.
2) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, read
with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, the
petitioner has sought quashing of the judgment and order dated
01.04.2023, passed by the learned 8 th Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Rajkot in Criminal Case No.7917 of 2020, by which the
petitioner has been convicted and ordered to undergo
imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay the amount of
Rs.1,30,403.08 paisa towards compensation to the complainant
and in default of payment of the said amount, the petitioner to
undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of six months and
as the petitioner was not present when the judgment was
pronounced, the learned Magistrate issued committal warrant
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/14361/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/11/2025
undefined
against the petitioner.
3) The case of the complainant is that the accused took personal loan
by signing loan agreement and other documents and gave
assurance of paying regular installments. The accused also opted
for Electronic Clearing System (ECS) and accordingly issued
standing instructions to its banker debt of sum of Rs.1,30,403.38
paisa towards the equated monthly installment. But the accused
failed to repay the said loan and ECS had regularly bounced due to
which the complainant issued a memorandum to the accused on
28.02.2020, from the loan account for its clearance for
Rs.1,30,403.38 paisa which was returned vide loan No.53314609
on 28.02.2020 by reason "Insufficient Funds. Therefore, the
complainant issued legal notice dated 05.03.2020 through
Registered Post A.D., which was served to the accused but the
accused did not reply and also not paid the due amount. Therefore,
the complainant has filed the present complaint being Criminal
Case No.7917 of 2020, for the offence under Section 25 of the
Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007.
4) It appears that the settlement has been arrived at between the
complainant and present petitioner and the entire loan amount has
been paid to the respondent complainant, which has been
confirmed by Mr. Kiran Rajeshkumar Sukhadiya, authorized
person of the complainant by Affidavit dated 03.11.2025,
which is taken on record. The complainant is willing to compound
the offence. The complainant in present in the Court and affirms
the factum of settlement as well as filing of affidavit by him.
5) In case of Kripalsingh Pratapsingh Vs. Salvinder Kaur
Hardisingh Lohana reported in (2004)2 GLH 544, the
Coordinate Bench of this Court after considering various decisions
of the Apex Court, took a view that it would be permissible for the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/14361/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/11/2025
undefined
High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of
the Code / Section 528 of the BNSS, to record the settlement
arrived at between the parties, merely alternate remedy available is
not a ground to refuse to compromise as offence is bailable and
compoundable one.
6) Thus, taking into account the fact of settlement, the compounding
of the offence is hereby permitted. However, considering the
conduct of the petitioner as he belatedly entered into the
settlement at the appellate stage the petitioner is required to be
saddled with cost.
7) As a result, the petition is allowed subject to payment of cost of
Rs.13,040/- (i.e. 10% of the amount in question) by the
petitioner to be deposited with the Gujarat State Legal Services
Authority within a period of ONE WEEK from today. The
judgment and order dated 01.04.2023, passed by the learned 8 th
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot in Criminal Case
No.7917 of 2020, and warrant issued by it are hereby quashed and
set aside. The petitioner is acquitted of the offences under the
provisions of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007. Rule
is made absolute to aforesaid extent. Direct service permitted.
8) If the petitioner fails to deposit the cost amount then the learned
trial Court shall straightaway issue warrant for execution.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ANKIT JANSARI
