Gujarat High Court
Kunal Kiritbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 26 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19870/2025 ORDER DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL) NO. 19870
of 2025
In F/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 37963 of 2025
==========================================================
KUNAL KIRITBHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR CHAITANYA S JOSHI(5927) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. PRANAV DHAGAT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 26/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The applicant has filed the present application seeking leave to
appeal under Section 419(4) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 (for short "BNSS") against the judgment and order passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Criminal Appeal No. 578
of 2024, whereby, the learned Sessions Judge, Junagadh has set aside the
allowed the appeal of the respondent No. 2 and remanded the matter back
to the leaned Trial Court.
2. The brief facts of the present appeal are as under;-
2.1 The applicant and the respondent No. 2 were known to each other
and the respondent No. 2 was in need of some finance to start business of
sand and requested for loan of Rs.15,00,000/- from the applicant. The
applicant gave an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- by transfer in the account of
the accused and an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- in cash in parts and in all an
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19870/2025 ORDER DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
amount of Rs.15,00,000/-was given. The respondent No. 2 returned an
amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and towards the outstanding amount of
Rs.12,00,000/- issued cheque No. "039591' dated 15-11-2022 from his
account with IDBI Bank Bodeli Branch. The cheque was deposited by the
applicant in his account with the Kalupur Commercial Cooperative Bank
Limited Manjalpur branch but the cheque returned unpaid with the
endorsement "Funds Insufficient". The demand statutory notice was
given, which was refused by the respondent No. 2 and the amount was
not paid within the stipulated period and hence the applicant filed a
criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act,1881 before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara
which came to be registered as Criminal Case No. 1453 of 2023. The
learned Trial Court took cognizance of the offence and issued summons
to the respondent No. 2 and after the respondent No. 2 appeared, his plea
was recorded at Exh. 7. The applicant filed his affidavit of examination-
in-chief at Exh. 4 and produced seven documentary evidences in support
of his case. The respondent No. 2 did not appear to cross-examine the
applicant and the evidence produced by the applicant remained
unchallenged and warrants were issued to the respondent No. 2, which
could not be served. The further statement of the respondent No. 2 under
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was not recorded
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19870/2025 ORDER DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
and the learned Trial Court closed the stage of cross-examination as well
as the stage of recording of 313 of the Cr.P.C. of the respondent No. 2
and in the absence of the respondent No. 2, was pleased to pass a
judgment in order of conviction and sentenced the respondent No. 2 to
simple imprisonment of 6 months and ordered the respondent No. 2 to
pay an amount of Rs.11,50,000/- as compensation to the applicant within
a period of 1 month and fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default, simple
imprisonment for one and a half months. The learned Trial Court was
pleased to issue a non-bailable warrant against the respondent No. 2 for
execution of the sentence.
2.2 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order
of conviction, the respondent No. 2 filed Criminal Appeal No. 578 of
2022 before the Sessions Court, Vadodara and after hearing the learned
advocates for the parties, the learned Trial Court was pleased to quash
and set aside the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned
Trial Court and discharge the respondent No. 2 from the charges levelled
against him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2.3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order
of acquittal, the applicant has filed a present application seeking leave to
appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgment and order is bad in
law, illegal, unjust, perverse and contrary to the material evidence
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19870/2025 ORDER DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
available under law. The learned Sessions Court has erred in holding that
the complainant's consent was not necessary for setting aside the
conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881
solely on the basis of payment made by the accused and the learned
Sessions Court had recorded that the complainant was not ready and
willing to compound the matter. The finding of the learned Sessions
Court is contrary to the settled law, which mandates that the consent of
the complainant is required for compounding the offence under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The learned Sessions Court
has failed to appreciate that the learned Trial Court had convicted the
respondent No. 2 after all legal requirements under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act were unchallenged and these presumptions
under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act clearly
favoured the applicant. The order passed by the learned Sessions Court is
unjust and hence the application seeking leave to appeal is required to be
allowed.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Chaitanya Joshi for the applicant and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Pranav Dhagat for the
respondent No. 1 - State .
4. Learned advocate Mr. Chaitanya Joshi has vehemently argued and
submitted that it is on record that the applicant has received the entire
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19870/2025 ORDER DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
amount that was due to him and the entire amount was paid by the
respondent No. 2 but the applicant was not willing to compound the
matter and without the consent of the applicant, the learned Sessions
Court could not quash and set aside the judgment and order of conviction
and acquit the respondent No. 2 from the offence under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act. The applicant is willing to pursue the
matter as he wants to ensure that the respondent No. 2 is put behind bars.
Learned Advocate submits that as per the settled provisions of law and as
per the settled provisions of law by the Apex Court in the case of
A.S.Pharma Private Limited versus Nayati Medical Private Limited and
others reported in 2024 LawSuit (SC) 719, the consent of the
complainant is required in the proceedings for quashing and
compounding requires the consent of the complainant. Learned advocate
further submits that a case under Section 138 of the NI Act, cannot be
compounded without the consent of the complainant and, in the instant
case, the complainant did not consent even though the entire amount of
cheque was received and hence the learned Sessions Court could not
quash and set aside the judgment and order of conviction passed by the
learned Trial Court.
5. Learned APP Mr. Pranav Dhagat for the respondent No. 1 - State
submits that if the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Court is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19870/2025 ORDER DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
perused, the learned Sessions Court has relied upon the ratio laid down by
the Honourable Apex Court in Raj Reddy Kallam versus the State of
Haryana and Others, reported in 2024 INSC 347 and has admitted that
consent is required to compound the offence under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 but has also considered that the
criminal case was filed for a cheque of Rs.12,00,000/-, wherein,
Rs.50,000/- was received by the complainant pending the case and further
an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- was transferred pendent-lit hearing of the
appeal and the documentary evidence for the transaction of Rs.1,50,000/-
was brought on record after the hearing was conducted by the respondent
No. 2. The learned Sessions Court considered that as the entire amount
was received, the consent of the complainant was not necessary to quash
and set aside the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned
Trial Court and hence the application seeking leave to appeal is required
to be rejected.
6. This Court has perused the judgment and order of conviction of the
learned Trial Court, the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Court
passed in Criminal Appeal No. 578 of 2024 and the paper book produced
by the learned advocate for the applicant on record. It is not in dispute
that the case has been filed for a cheque of the amount of Rs. 12,00,000/-
and after the respondent No. 2 was served with the summons, he appeared
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19870/2025 ORDER DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
before the learned Trial Court and his plea was recorded at Exh.7. The
applicant produced the oral and documentary evidences but thereafter the
respondent No. 2 did not appear before the learned Trial Court and the
evidence produced by the applicant remained unchallenged. It is also on
record that the further statement of the respondent No. 2 under Section
313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was not recorded and the
warrants issued to the respondent No. 2 did not return back to the learned
Court served or unserved. It appears that the applicant did not make
efforts to get the warrants served and get the respondent No. 2 present
before the learned Trial Court and there is nothing on record to suggest as
to how many efforts were made by the applicant to get the warrants
served to the respondent No. 2. The learned Trial Court has proceeded in
an ex-parte manner and the entire evidence of the applicant has remained
unchallenged and even on the day of the judgment, the respondent No.2
was not present before the learned Trial court. It has also emerged on
record that during the pendency of the learned Trial Court, an amount of
Rs.50,000/- was paid and thereafter the judgment and order of conviction
has been challenged by the respondent No. 2 before the learned Sessions
Court. If the entire judgment and order of session of the learned Sessions
Court is perused , the learned Sessions Court has relied upon the
judgment in Raj Reddy Kallam (supra) and has observed that consent of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19870/2025 ORDER DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
the complainant is needed for compounding the matter but looking to the
facts and circumstances of the case that the applicant has been
sufficiently compensated, was pleased to quash and set aside the
judgment and order of conviction of the learned Trial Court. It is
pertinent to note that the learned Sessions Court did not compound the
matter but in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as
the applicant had received the entire amount of cheque, thought it
justified to quash and set aside the order of conviction of the learned Trial
Court which had proceeded exparte.
7. At this juncture, it would be fit to reproduce the order passed by
the learned Apex Court in the case of Sanjabij Tari Vs. Kishore S.
Borcar and Another in Criminal Appeal No. 1755 of 2010 on 25-09-
2025, wherein the Apex Court has issued the following guidelines in
paragraph 33, keeping in view the massive backlog of cheque bouncing
cases.
33. Before parting with this matter, this Court takes judicial notice of the
fact that despite repeated directions by this Court in various judgments
including Indian Bank Association and Others vs. Union of India and Others,
(2014) 5 SCC 590, Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H., (2010) 5 SCC
663 and In Re: Expeditious Trial of cases under Section 138 of NI Act 1881,
(2021) 16 SCC 116, pendency of cheque bouncing cases under the NI Act in
District Courts in major metropolitan cities of India continues to be
staggeringly high. For instance, the pendency of Section 138 cases as on 01st
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19870/2025 ORDER DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
September 2025 in Delhi District Courts is 6,50,283 (Six Lakhs Fifty Thousand
Two Hundred Eighty Three), Mumbai District Courts is 1,17,190 (One Lakh
Seventeen Thousand One Hundred Ninety) and Calcutta District Courts is
2,65,985 (Two Lakhs Sixty Five Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty Five). This
pendency is putting an unprecedented strain on the judicial system as in some
States, cases under Section 138 of the NI Act constitute nearly fifty per cent
(50%) of the pendency in Trial Court (in Delhi Section 138 NI Act cases
constitute 49.45% of total Trial Court pendency).
34. In P. Mohanraj and Others v. Shah Brothers Ispat Private Limited,
(2021) 6 SCC 258, this Court while re-iterating the position of law with regard
to the nature of offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, has held as under:
"53. A perusal of the judgment in Ishwarlal Bhagwandas [S.A.L.Narayan Row
v. Ishwarlal Bhagwandas, (1966) 1 SCR 190 : AIR 1965 SC 1818] would show
that a civil proceeding is not necessarily a proceeding which begins with the
filing of a suit and culminates in execution of a decree. It would include a
revenue proceeding as well as a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution, if the reliefs therein are to enforce rights of a civil nature.
Interestingly, criminal proceedings are stated to be proceedings in which the
larger interest of the State is concerned. Given these tests, it is clear that a
Section 138 proceeding can be said to be a "civil sheep" in a "criminal wolf's"
clothing, as it is the interest of the victim that is sought to be protected, the
larger interest of the State being subsumed in the victim alone moving a court
in cheque bouncing cases, as has been seen by us in the analysis made
hereinabove of Chapter XVII of the Negotiable Instruments Act." (emphasis
supplied)
35. Admittedly, the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act is quasi-criminal in
character and is compoundable [See: Damodar S. Prabhu (supra)]. Recently,
in Gian Chand Garg v. Harpal Singh & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 3789 of
2025 dated 11th August 2025), a co-ordinate Bench of this Court has set aside
concurrent convictions rendered by the Courts below on the ground that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19870/2025 ORDER DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
proceeding under Section 138 of the NI Act is essentially a civil proceeding and
it is open to the parties to enter into a voluntary compromise. Consequently,
this Court is of the view that not only a voluntary compromise can bring the
proceedings under Section 138 NI Act to an end, but the accused under the said
offence are entitled to benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 [See:
Chellammal & Another vs. State Represented by the Inspector of Police, 2025
SCC OnLine SC 870]. Observations to the contrary by Kerala HC in M.V.
Nalinakshan vs. M. Rameshan & Anr. 2009 All MR (Cri) Journal 273 are set
aside.
36. Keeping in view the massive backlog of cheque bouncing cases and the
fact that service of summons on the accused in a complaint filed under Section
138 of the NI Act continues to be one of the main reasons for the delay in
disposal of the complaints as well as the fact that punishment under the NI Act
is not a means of seeking retribution but is more a means to ensure payment of
money and to promote credibility of cheques as a trustworthy substitute for
cash payment, this Court issues the following directions:-
A. In all cases filed under Section 138 of the NI Act, service of summons shall
not be confined through prescribed usual modes but shall also be issued dasti
i.e. summons shall be served upon the accused by the complainant in addition.
This direction is necessary as a large number of Section 138 cases under the NI
Act are filed in the metropolitan cities by financial institutions, by virtue of
Section 142(2) of the NI Act, against accused who may not be necessarily
residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court where the complaint has
been filed. The Trial Courts shall further resort to service of summons by
electronic means in terms of the applicable Notifications/Rules, if any, framed
under sub- Sections 1 and 2 of Section 64 and under Clause (i) of Section 530
and other provisions of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short
'BNSS, 2023') like Delhi BNSS (Service of Summons and Warrants) Rules,
2025. For this purpose, the complainant shall, at the time of filing the
complaint, provide the requisite particulars including e-mail address, mobile
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19870/2025 ORDER DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
number and/or WhatsApp number/messaging application details of the
accused, duly supported by an affidavit verifying that the said particulars
pertain to the accused/respondent.
B. The complainant shall file an affidavit of service before the Court. In the
event such affidavit is found to be false, the Court shall be at liberty to take
appropriate action against the complainant in accordance with law.
C. In order to facilitate expeditious settlement of cases under Section 138
of the NI Act, the Principal District and Sessions Judge of each District Court
shall create and operationalise dedicated online payment facilities through
secure QR codes or UPI links. The summons shall expressly mention that the
Respondent/Accused has the option to make payment of the cheque amount at
the initial stage itself, directly through the said online link. The complainant
shall also be informed of such payment and upon confirmation of receipt,
appropriate orders regarding release of such money and compounding/closure
of proceedings under Section 147 of the NI Act and/or Section 255 of
Cr.P.C./278 BNSS, 2023 may be passed by the Court in accordance with law.
This measure shall promote settlement at the threshold stage and/or ensure
speedy disposal of cases.
D. Each and every complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act shall contain a
synopsis in the following format which shall be filed immediately after the
index (at the top of the file) i.e. prior to the formal complaint:- Complaint
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
I. Particulars of the Parties
(i) Complainant: ____________
(ii) Accused: ____________
(In case where the accused is a company or a firm then Registered Address,
Name of the Managing Director/Partner, Name of the signatory, Name of the
persons vicariously liable)
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19870/2025 ORDER DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
II. Cheque Details
(i) Cheque No. ____________
(ii) Date: ____________
(iii) Amount: ____________
(iv) Drawn on Bank/Branch: ____________
(v) Account No.: ____________
III. Dishonour
(i) Date of Presentation: ____________
(ii) Date of Return/Dishonour Memo: ____________
(iii) Branch where cheque was dishonoured:_________
(iv) Reason for Dishonour: ____________
IV. Statutory Notice
(i) Date of Notice: ____________
(ii) Mode of Service: ____________
(iii) Date of Dispatch & Tracking No.: ____________
(iv) Proof of Delivery & date of delivery: ____________
(v) Whether served:____________________
(vi) If Not, reasons thereof:________________
(vii) Reply to the Legal Demand Notice, if any_______________
V. Cause of Action
(i) Date of accrual: ____________
(ii) Jurisdiction invoked under Section 142(2): ____________
(iii) Whether any other complaint under section 138 NI Act is pending between
the same parties, If Yes, in which court and the date and year of the institution.
VI. Relief Sought
(i) Summoning of accused and trial under Section 138 NI Act__________
(ii) Whether Award of Interim compensation under Section 143A of NI Act
sought _____
VII. Filed through:
Complainant/Authorized Representative"
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19870/2025 ORDER DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
E. Recently, the High Court of Karnataka in Ashok Vs. Fayaz Aahmad, 2025
SCC OnLine Kar 490 has taken the view that since NI Act is a special
enactment, there is no need for the Magistrate to issue summons to the accused
before taking cognizance (under Section 223 of BNSS) of complaints filed
under Section 138 of NI Act. This Court is in agreement with the view taken by
the High Court of Karnataka. Consequently, this Court directs that there shall
be no requirement to issue summons to the accused in terms of Section 223 of
BNSS i.e., at the pre-cognizance stage.
F. Since the object of Section 143 of the NI Act is quick disposal of the
complaints under Section 138 by following the procedure prescribed for
summary trial under the Code, this Court reiterates the direction of this Court
in In Re: Expeditious Trial of cases under Section 138 of NI Act (supra) that
the Trial Courts shall record cogent and sufficient reasons before converting a
summary trial to summons trial. To facilitate this process, this Court clarifies
that in view of the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Rajesh Agarwal vs.
State and Anr., 2010 SCC OnLine Del 2511, the Trial Court shall be at liberty
(at the initial post cognizance stage) to ask questions, it deems appropriate,
under Section 251 Cr.P.C. / Section 274 BNSS, 2023 including the following
questions:-
(i) Do you admit that the cheque belongs to your account? Yes/No
(ii) Do you admit that the signature on the cheque is yours? Yes/No
(iii) Did you issue/deliver this cheque to the complainant? Yes/No
(iv) Do you admit that you owed liability to the complainant at the time of
issuance? Yes/No
(v) If you deny liability, state clearly the defence:
(a) Security cheque only;
(b) Loan repaid already;
(c) Cheque altered/misused;
(d) Other (specify).
(vi) Do you wish to compound the case at this stage? Yes/No
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19870/2025 ORDER DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
G. The Court shall record the responses to the questions in the order- sheet in
the presence of the accused and his/her counsel and thereafter determine
whether the case is fit to be tried summarily under Chapter XXI of the Cr.P.C. /
Chapter XXII of the BNSS, 2023.
H. Wherever, the Trial Court deems it appropriate, it shall use its power to
order payment of interim deposit as early as possible under Section 143A of the
NI Act.
I. Since physical courtrooms create a conducive environment for direct and
informal interactions encouraging early resolution, the High Courts shall
ensure that after service of summons, the matters are placed before the
physical Courts. Exemptions from personal appearances should be granted
only when facts so warrant. It is clarified that prior to the service of summons
the matters may be listed before the digital Courts.
J. Wherever cases under Section 138 of the NI Act are permitted to be heard
and disposed of by evening courts, the High Courts should ensure that
pecuniary limit of the cheque amount is realistic. For instance, in Delhi, the
jurisdiction of the evening courts to hear and decide cases of cheque amount is
not exceeding Rs.25,000/-. In the opinion of this Court, the said limit is too low.
The High Courts should forthwith issue practice directions and set up realistic
pecuniary benchmarks for evening Courts.
K. Each District and Sessions Judge in Delhi, Mumbai and Calcutta shall
maintain a dedicated dashboard reflecting the pendency and progress of cases
under Section 138 of the NI Act. The dashboard shall include, inter alia, details
regarding total pendency, monthly disposal rates, percentage of cases
settled/compounded, average number of adjournments per case and the stage-
wise breakup of pending matters. The District and Sessions Judges in aforesaid
jurisdictions shall conduct monthly reviews of the functioning of Magistrates
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19870/2025 ORDER DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
handling NI Act matters. A consolidated quarterly report shall be forwarded to
the High Court.
L. The Chief Justices of Delhi, Bombay and Calcutta are requested to form
Committee on the Administrative side to monitor pendency and to ensure
expeditious disposal of Section 138 of the NI Act cases. These Committees
should meet at least once a month and explore the option of appointing
experienced Magistrates to deal with Section 138 of the NI Act cases as well as
promoting mediation, holding of Lok Adalats and other alternative dispute
resolution mechanisms in Section 138 NI Act cases.
37. It is pertinent to mention that this Court framed guidelines for
compounding offences under the NI Act nearly fifteen years back in Damodar
S. Prabhu (supra). The relevant portion of the said Judgment is reproduced
hereinbelow:-
"THE GUIDELINES
(i) In the circumstances, it is proposed as follows:
(a) That directions can be given that the writ of summons be suitably
modified making it clear to the accused that he could make an application for
compounding of the offences at the first or second hearing of the case and that
if such an application is made, compounding may be allowed by the court
without imposing any costs on the accused.
(b) If the accused does not make an application for compounding as
aforesaid, then if an application for compounding is made before the
Magistrate at a subsequent stage, compounding can be allowed subject to the
condition that the accused will be required to pay 10% of the cheque amount to
be deposited as a condition for compounding with the Legal Services Authority,
or such authority as the court deems fit.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19870/2025 ORDER DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
(c) Similarly, if the application for compounding is made before the
Sessions Court or a High Court in revision or appeal, such compounding may
be allowed on the condition that the accused pays 15% of the cheque amount
by way of costs.
(d) Finally, if the application for compounding is made before the
Supreme Court, the figure would increase to 20% of the cheque amount.
xxx xxx xxx
24. We are also conscious of the view that the judicial endorsement of the
abovequoted Guidelines could be seen as an act of judicial law-making and
therefore an intrusion into the legislative domain. It must be kept in mind that
Section 147 of the Act does not carry any guidance on how to proceed with the
compounding of offences under the Act. We have already explained that the
scheme contemplated under Section 320 CrPC cannot be followed in the strict
sense. In view of the legislative vacuum, we see no hurdle to the endorsement of
some suggestions which have been designed to discourage litigants from
unduly delaying the composition of the offence in cases involving Section 138
of the Act.
25. The graded scheme for imposing costs is a means to encourage
compounding at an early stage of litigation. In the status quo, valuable time of
the court is spent on the trial of these cases and the parties are not liable to pay
any court fee since the proceedings are governed by the Code of Criminal
Procedure, even though the impact of the offence is largely confined to the
private parties. Even though the imposition of costs by the competent court is a
matter of discretion, the scale of costs has been suggested in the interest of
uniformity. The competent Court can of course reduce the costs with regard to
the specific facts and circumstances of a case, while recording reasons in
writing for such variance. Bona fide litigants should of course contest the
proceedings to their logical end.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19870/2025 ORDER DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
26. Even in the past, this Court has used its power to do complete justice
under Article 142 of the Constitution to frame guidelines in relation to the
subject-matter where there was a legislative vacuum."
38. Since a very large number of cheque bouncing cases are still pending
and interest rates have fallen in the last few years, this Court is of the view that
it is time to 'revisit and tweak the guidelines'. Accordingly, the aforesaid
guidelines of compounding are modified as under:-
(a) If the accused pays the cheque amount before recording of his evidence
(namely defence evidence), then the Trial Court may allow compounding of the
offence without imposing any cost or penalty on the accused.
(b) If the accused makes the payment of the cheque amount post the recording
of his evidence but prior to the pronouncement of judgment by the Trial Court,
the Magistrate may allow compounding of the offence on payment of additional
5% of the cheque amount with the Legal Services Authority or such other
Authority as the Court deems fit,
(c) Similarly, if the payment of cheque amount is made before the Sessions
Court or a High Court in Revision or Appeal, such Court may compound the
offence on the condition that the accused pays 7.5% of the cheque amount by
way of costs.
(d) Finally, if the cheque amount is tendered before this Court, the figure would
increase to 10% of the cheque amount. 39. This Court is of the view that if the
Accused is willing to pay in accordance with the aforesaid guidelines, the
Court may suggest to the parties to go for compounding. If for any reason, the
financial institutions/ complainant asks for payment other than the cheque
amount or settlement of entire loan or other outstanding dues, then the
Magistrate may suggest to the Accused to plead guilty and exercise the power
under Section 255(2) and/or 255(3) of the Cr.P.C. or 278 of the BNSS, 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19870/2025 ORDER DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
and/or give the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the
Accused."
8. In light of the decision of the Apex Court in Sanjabij Tari (supra)
and considering the facts of the present case that the presence of the
respondent No. 2 could not be secured by the applicant before the learned
Trial Court and the entire evidence of the applicant was unchallenged and
even for the recording of the statement under Section 313 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 the presence of the respondent No. 2 could not
be secured and the respondent No. 2 did not have the opportunity to
explain the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him and the
fact that the entire amount of cheque was paid by the respondent No. 2 to
the applicant, this Court is of the considered view that there is no point in
continuing with the proceeding. Even otherwise, the learned advocate for
the applicant has not been able to point out that the impugned judgment
and order dated 30-07-2025 passed by the learned 12th Additional
Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Criminal Appeal No. 578 of 2024 is bad in
law, illegal, unjust and perverse and hence the application seeking leave
to appeal does not deserve consideration and consequently the same is
hereby rejected.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19870/2025 ORDER DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
9. Since the leave to prefer appeal is rejected, no order is required to
be passed in the Criminal Appeal, which is at filing stage and the same
stands disposed accordingly.
(S. V. PINTO,J)
VVM
