Gujarat High Court
Bansilal Hansaji Prajapati vs State Of Gujarat on 17 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/22007/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 22007 of 2025
==========================================================
BANSILAL HANSAJI PRAJAPATI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DARSHIT D THAKKAR(12434) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ABDULLAH F MANSURI(13262) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. MANAN MAHETA ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL K. VYAS
Date : 17/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Learned advocate Ms. Aarti Savaliya appears and
submits that she has instructions to appear on behalf of the
respondent no.2 - complainant. She is permitted to file her
appearance. Registry shall accept her vakalatnama.
2. By way of preferring the present application under
Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023, the applicant-accused seeks to invoke the inherent
powers of this Court, praying to quash and set-aside the
order dated 30.9.2024 passed by the learned 24 th
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad City, in
Criminal Case No.100 of 2016 (old Criminal Case No. 1326
of 2012), for the offence punishable under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act as well as all other
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/22007/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
consequential proceedings arising pursuant thereto.
3. Today, when the matter is called out, the complainant,
who is personally present before this Court, has produced
his identity proof as well as the affidavit which are ordered
to be taken on record. In the said affidavit, the complainant
has categorically stated that he has received his dues and
the dispute has been amicably resolved. The complainant
has further stated that he has no grievance or ill-will
against the applicant.
4. Considering the issue involved in the present
application as well as considering the fact that the dispute
has been amicably resolved between the parties, with the
consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties, the present application is taken up for final
disposal.
5. RULE returnable forthwith. Learned APP Mr. Manan
Maheta waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of
the respondent no.1 - State and learned advocate Mr. Aarti
Savaliya waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of
the respondent no.2 - complainant.
6. The complainant, who is present in the Court, has
categorically stated before this Court that the dispute has
been resolved and he has no objection if the application is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/22007/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
allowed and the impugned order is quashed and set-aside.
7. The relevant paragraph of the affidavit reads thus :
" I state and submit that an amicable settlement
arrived at between the respondent No.2/original
complainant and the petitioner and thus the
respondent No. 2 has no objection if the impugned
judgment and order dated 30.9.2024 passed by the
learned 24th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Ahmedabad City in Criminal Case No. 100 of 2016
(old Criminal Case No. 1326 of 2012) is quashed and
set aside . I say that I have no grievance against the
petitioner and I further say that I have no objection if
the present petition is allowed".
8. Thus, it appears from the aforesaid that to continue
further with the proceedings pursuant to the impugned
order would be a futile exercise and the same would
amount to abuse of process of law.
9. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties as well as considering the facts and
circumstances arising out of the present application and
taking into consideration the decisions rendered in the
cases of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Another,
reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, Madan Mohan Abbot vs.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/22007/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
State of Punjab, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582, Nikhil
Merchant vs. Central Bureau of Investigation &
Another, reported in (2009) 1 GLH 31, Manoj Sharma vs.
State & Others, reported in (2009) 1 GLH 190, and
Narinder Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab &
Another, reported in (2014) 2 Crime 67 (SC) as well as State
of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal, reported in AIR 1992 SC 604, it
appears that continuing further with the proceedings
pursuant to the impugned order would be a futile exercise
and the same would amount to abuse of process of law.
Hence, to secure the ends of justice, the impugned order
and all other consequential proceedings arising pursuant
thereto are required to be quashed and set-aside in exercise
of the powers conferred 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
10. In the result, the application is allowed. The order
dated 30.9.2024 passed by the learned 24 th Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad City in Criminal Case
No.100 of 2016 (old Criminal Case No. 1326 of 2012) for
the offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, as well as all other consequential
proceedings arising pursuant thereto are hereby ordered to
be quashed and set-aside qua the applicant.
11. Rule made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
12. In view of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/22007/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
the case of Sanjabij Tari Vs. Kishore S. Borcar [2025
INSC 1158], the applicant is directed to deposit 7.5 % of
the cheque amount, by way of costs, with the District Legal
Service Authority, Ahmedabad, within a period of 2 weeks
from the date of this order.
(VIMAL K. VYAS, J)
MARY VADAKKAN
