Gujarat High Court
Mahammad Mohsin Sirazahamad Memon vs State Of Gujarat on 11 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/12370/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 12370
of 2025
============================================
MAHAMMAD MOHSIN SIRAZAHAMAD MEMON
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
============================================
Appearance:
MR RAHUL RAJHANS(12788) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR YUVRAJ BRAHMBHATT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 11/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
Learned Advocate Mr. Rauhan R. Gogda, 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 17.10.2024, passed by the learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Wankaner, District Morbi, in Criminal Case
No.2623 of 2022, by which the petitioner has been convicted and
ordered to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months and to
pay the amount of Rs.12,00,000/- 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
one month and as the petitioner was not present when the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/12370/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
judgment was pronounced, the learned Magistrate issued warrant
against 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, the complainant is
present in-person who has admitted the factum of settlement and
filed his Affidavit dated 11.09.2025, 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
of the offence is hereby permitted.
7) As a result, the petition is allowed. The judgment and order dated
17.10.2024, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/12370/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
Magistrate, Wankaner, District Morbi, in Criminal Case No.2623 of
2022, and warrant issued by it 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
15% of the cheque amount i.e. Rs.1,80,000/- with the Gujarat
State Legal Services Authority within a period of four (4) weeks
from the date of receipt of this order. Rule is made absolute to
aforesaid extent. Direct service permitted.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ANKIT
