Gujarat High Court
Kusumben Jagdishbhai Bhuva vs State Of Gujarat on 3 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/13380/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (FOR CONSENT
QUASHING) NO. 13380 of 2025
============================================
KUSUMBEN JAGDISHBHAI BHUVA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
============================================
Appearance:
MR MANOJ P SOLANKI(11598) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR MANAN MAHETA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 03/10/2025
ORAL ORDER
Learned Advocate Mr. Yuvrajsinh H. Chauhan, 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 Articles 226 and 227 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 09.01.2024, passed by the learned 10 th Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Jamnagar in Criminal Case No.8413 of 2022, as
well as the judgment and order dated 28.07.2025, passed by the
learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar in Criminal Appeal
No.32 of 2024. By the judgment dated 28.07.2025 the petitioner
has been convicted and ordered to undergo simple imprisonment
for a period of one year and to pay the amount of Rs.3,00,119/-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/13380/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/10/2025
undefined
towards compensation to the complainant within 90 days and in
default of payment of the said amount, the petitioner to undergo
further simple imprisonment for a period of three months and as
the petitioner.
3) It appears that the settlement has been arrived at between the
complainant and present petitioner and the entire cheque amount
has been paid to the respondent complainant, which has been
confirmed by the complainant by Affidavit at Annexure - D, placed
on record. The complainant do not wish to proceed further and is
willing to compound the offence. Accordingly, the petitioner by
filing this petition, seeks compounding of the offence under Section
147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
4) The petitioner also submits that the petitioner is willing to deposit
costs as directed by the Supreme Court in case of Damodar S.
Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H., reported in (2010) 5 SCC 633,
with the Legal Service Authority. 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
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.
7) As a result, the petition is allowed. The judgment and order dated
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/13380/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/10/2025
undefined
09.01.2024, passed by the learned 10 th Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Jamnagar in Criminal Case No.8413 of 2022, as well as
the judgment and order dated 28.07.2025, passed by the learned
2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar in Criminal Appeal No.32
of 2024, are hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner is
acquitted of the offences under the provisions of the Negotiable
Instruments Act. The petitioner is directed to deposit 7.5% of the
cheque amount i.e. Rs.22,509/- with the Gujarat State Legal
Services Authority within a period of one week from the date of
receipt of this order. Rule is made absolute to aforesaid extent.
Direct service permitted. If the petitioner is in jail, the jail
authority concerned is directed to release the petitioner
forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ANKIT
