Gujarat High Court
Dipikaben Manilal Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 9 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/13623/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (FOR CONSENT
QUASHING) NO. 13623 of 2025
============================================
DIPIKABEN MANILAL PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
============================================
Appearance:
MR. JAY G THAKER(9944) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS. SUMAN RATHOD(15209) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS MONALI BHATT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 09/10/2025
ORAL ORDER
Learned Advocate Mr. Chetan Prajapati, 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 19.09.2025, passed by the learned 6 th Additional
Sessions Judge, Court No.6, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad in
Criminal Appeal No.104 of 2023, uploading the judgment and order
dated 12.10.2022 passed in Criminal Case No.66154 of 2017,
passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, NI
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/13623/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/10/2025
undefined
Court No.36, Ahmedabad, by which the petitioner has been
convicted and ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period
of one year and to pay the amount of Rs.6,00,000/- 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 two months.
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 dated 09.10.2025, which
is taken 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/13623/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/10/2025
undefined
of the offence is hereby permitted.
7) As a result, the petition is allowed. The judgment and order dated
19.09.2025, passed by the learned 6 th Additional Sessions Judge,
Court No.6, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No.104
of 2023, uploading the judgment and order dated 12.10.2022
passed in Criminal Case No.66154 of 2017, passed by the learned
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, NI Court No.36,
Ahmedabad, 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.45,000/- 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.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ANKIT
