Gujarat High Court
Badalkumar Jagmalbhai Barad vs State Of Gujarat on 3 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/11377/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (FOR CONSENT
QUASHING) NO. 11377 of 2025
=========================================
BADALKUMAR JAGMALBHAI BARAD
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
=========================================
Appearance:
MR. AMIT R TIWARI(9947) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
APP MR HARDIK MEHTA for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=========================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 03/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
[1.0] Learned advocate Mr. Chirag A Prajapati, states that he has
instructions to appear on behalf of the original complainant and
seeks permission to file his Vakalatnama, which is granted. The
affidavit of the original complainant is produced which is taken on
record.
[2.0] RULE. Learned advocates waive service of note of rule on
behalf of the respective respondents.
[3.0] Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and
since it is jointly stated at the Bar by learned advocates on both the
sides that the dispute between the parties has been resolved
amicably, this matter is taken up for final disposal forthwith.
[4.0] By way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/11377/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2025
undefined
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 the petitioner has prayed to quash and set
aside the judgment and order passed in Criminal Case No. 2277 of
2023 by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Gir-Somnath for the offences under section 147 of The
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and to quash all other
consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
[5.0] Learned advocates for the respective parties submitted that
during the pendency of proceedings, the parties have settled the
dispute amicably and pursuant to such mutual settlement, the
original complainant has also filed an Affidavit at Annexure B,
which is taken on record. In the Affidavit, the original complainant
has categorically stated that the dispute with the petitioner has
been resolved amicably and that he has no objection, if the present
proceedings are quashed and set aside since there is no surviving
grievance between them.
[6.0] Having heard learned advocates on both the sides and
considering the fact that the offence is compoundable under
Section 147 of the of the Negotiable Instruments Act and
considering the circumstances of the case and as the case is
compoundable under Section 147 of the NI Act and keeping in
mind the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of
Damodar S. Prabhu v. Syed Babalal H. reported in (2010) 5
SCC 663, and considering the fact that settlement amount of
Rs.61,000/- out of which Rs. 56,000/- has been paid by the
petitioner after making certain deductions and now remains no
amount due and payable to the complainant, in the opinion of this
Court, the further continuation of criminal proceedings against the
petitioner in relation to the impugned complaint would cause
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/11377/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2025
undefined
unnecessary harassment to the petitioner. Further, the continuance
of trial pursuant to the mutual settlement arrived at between the
parties and to secure the ends of justice, it would be appropriate to
quash and set aside the impugned order of conviction and all
consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof under
Section 482 of the CrPC (section 528 of the BNSS).
[7.0] In the result, the petition is allowed on condition that the
petitioner shall have to deposit 15% of the amount (61,000/-) i.e
9,150/- before the State Legal Services Authority. The impugned
Criminal Case No. 2277 of 2023 passed by the learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gir-Somnath qua present
petitioner as well as warrant issued under in Criminal Case No.
2277 of 2023 is quashed and set aside along with all the
consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof. The
petitioner who is reported to be in jail is directed to be released
forthwith if not required in connection with any other case. Rule is
made absolute to the aforesaid extent only. Direct service is
permitted.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
Kaushal Rathod
