Gujarat High Court
Urmilaben Rameshbhai Chaudhary ... vs State Of Gujarat on 24 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/24320/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 24320 of 2025
==========================================================
URMILABEN RAMESHBHAI CHAUDHARY (KAREN)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.DIPEN F CHAUDHARI(6740) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. MANAN MAHETA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL K. VYAS
Date : 24/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Learned advocate Mr. Prakash K. Desai appears and
submits that he has instructions to appear on behalf of the
respondent no.2 - complainant. He is permitted to file his
appearance. Registry shall accept his 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 judgment and order
dated 30.10.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Palanpur, District Banaskantha, in Criminal Case
No. 7287 of 2025, for the offence punishable under Section 138
of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as well as all other
consequential proceedings arising pursuant thereto.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/24320/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
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 submitted an affidavit, which are
ordered to be taken on record. In the said affidavit, the
complainant has categorically stated that he has no grievance
against the applicant as he has received his dues, and the
dispute has been amicably resolved and there is no ill-will or any
grievance amongst them.
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 the
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. Prakash K.
Desai waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the
respondent no.2 - complainant.
6. The complainant, who is personally present in the Court,
has categorically stated before this Court that he has no
objection if the application is allowed and the judgment and
order of conviction and sentence dated 30.10.2025 passed by
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palanpur, District
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/24320/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
Banaskantha, in Criminal Case No. 7287 of 2025, is quashed
and set-aside.
7. Thus, it appears from the aforesaid that to continue
further with the proceedings pursuant to the impugned order of
conviction would be a futile exercise and the same would
amount to abuse of process of law.
8. The relevant paragraph of the affidavit reads thus :
"4. I further state and submit that as the settlement is arrived
between us and I have received cheque amount (Rs.95,000/-)
from the present applicant, I have no objection if the order
passed by Ld. Magistrate may be quashed and set aside by this
Hon'ble Court."
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. 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 of conviction would be a futile exercise
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/24320/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
and the same would amount to abuse of process of law. Hence,
to secure the ends of justice, the impugned judgment and order
of conviction and sentence 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 judgment and
order of conviction and sentence dated 30.10.2025 passed by
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palanpur, District
Banaskantha, in Criminal Case No. 7287 of 2025, 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. In view of the ratio laid down in the judgment in the case
of Sanjabij Tari Vs. Kishore S. Borcar and Another [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, Banaskantha, within a period of two weeks from the
date of this order.
12. Rule made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(VIMAL K. VYAS, J)
AMAR SINGH
