AMRATBHAI VAHJIBHAI RABARI vs STATE OF GUJARAT

Court
Gujarat High Court

R/SCR.A/13896/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240708262026)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (FOR CONSENT QUASHING) NO.
13896 of 2026
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
AMRATBHAI VAHJIBHAI RABARI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR DHARM K RAVAL(10689) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. KALPESHKUMAR C. RAVAL(19639) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR.AMIT R JOSHI(6682) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. KANVA ANTANI, APP, for the Respondent(s) No. 1
===============================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI

Date : 27/10/2026
JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith . Learned APP waives service
of notice of Rule for and on behalf of respondent-State.
Learned advocate Mr. Amit Joshi, waives service of notice of
Rule for and on behalf of respondent No.2-original
complainant.
2. The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India as well as section 528 of Bharatiya
Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashment of the
judgment and order dated 09.07.2026 passed in Criminal
rd
Case No.6544 of 2024 by the learned 3 Additional Chief
Page 1 of 5
Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Thu Oct 29 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 29 14:06:43 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/13896/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240708262026)
Judicial Magistrate, Palanpur, Banaskantha, whereby, the
present petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable
under section 138 of the N.I.Act.
3. Learned counsels appearing for the parties submitted
that the petitioner came to be convicted for the offense
punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act
rd
vide judgment and dated 09.07.2026 passed by learned 3
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palanpur in Criminal
Case No.6544 of 2024. He submitted that the matter has been
amicably settled between the parties. Therefore, the judgment
and order dated 09.07.2026 deserves to be set aside.
3.1 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
has relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the cases of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. ,
reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 , Madan Mohan Abbot Vs.
State of Punjab , reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582 , Nikhil
Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. ,
reported in 2009 (1) GLH 31, Manoj Sharma Vs. State &
Ors. , reported in 2009 (1) GLH 190 and Narinder Singh &
Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in 2014 (2)
Crime 67 (SC) as well as State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal
reported in AIR 1992 SC 604.
4. Learned APP appearing for the respondent-State
submitted that, having regard to the facts and circumstances
of the case, appropriate orders may be passed.
Page 2 of 5
Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Thu Oct 29 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 29 14:06:43 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/13896/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240708262026)
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2
vehemently submitted that the matter has been settled
amicably between the parties. He further submitted that
respondent No.2 has received the settlement amount. He
placed the latter dated 17.10.2026 on record.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties, as well as considering the facts and
circumstances arising out of the present petition, settlement
affidavit and also taking into consideration the decisions
rendered in the cases of Gian Singh (supra), Madan
Mohan Abbot (supra), Nikhil Merchant (supra), Manoj
Sharma (supra), Narinder Singh (supra) as well as
Bhajanlal (supra), it appears that continuing further with
the criminal proceedings in relation to the impugned FIR and
the Criminal Case against the petitioners-accused would be an
unnecessary harassment to the petitioners-accused. It further
appears that the trial would be a futile exercise and further
continuing with the criminal proceedings pursuant to the
impugned FIR and the Criminal Case would amount to abuse
of process of law. Hence, to secure the ends of justice, the
impugned FIR as well as the proceedings of the Criminal
Case, so also all other consequential proceedings are required
to be quashed and set aside in exercise of the powers
conferred under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
7. This Court has also referred the decision rendered by
the Apex Court in the case of SANJABIJ TARI V/S KISHORE
S BORCAR & ANR , reported in 2025 LawSuit(SC) 1302,
Page 3 of 5
Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Thu Oct 29 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 29 14:06:43 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/13896/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240708262026)
wherein it is held that 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:-
"THE GUIDELINES
“(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.”
8. Considering the overall submissions and the fact that the
parties have amicably settled the dispute, present application
is allowed. The judgment and order dated 09.07.2026 passed
rd
in Criminal Case No.6544 of 2024 by the learned 3
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palanpur, Banaskantha is
hereby quashed. In view of the quashment of the FIR and the
Page 4 of 5
Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Thu Oct 29 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 29 14:06:43 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/13896/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240708262026)
subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, the petitioner shall
be released forthwith, if not required in connection with any
other case.
9. The present petitioner is directed to deposit an amount
equivalent to 7.5% of the cheque amount with the Gujarat
High Court Legal Aid Services Authority within a period of
two weeks from today.
10. If the petitioner accused fails to deposit the aforesaid
amount within stipulated time period, the same shall be
recovered as fine. Necessary recovery warrant shall also be
issued and the concerned Collector shall recover the aforesaid
amount as arrears of land revenue.
11. Direct service is permitted. Rule is made absolute
accordingly.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
SIDDHARTH
Page 5 of 5
Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Thu Oct 29 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 29 14:06:43 IST 2026