JAYANTIBHAI BHATHIBHAI PARMAR PROP OF MISHRI TRADERS vs STATE OF GUJARAT

Court
Gujarat High Court

R/SCR.A/14651/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240762392026)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 14651 of 2026

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI

==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
JAYANTIBHAI BHATHIBHAI PARMAR PROP OF MISHRI TRADERS
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. PARAM. S. DAVE(14217) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
KB ANTANI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI

Date : 27/10/2026

JUDGMENT
1. The Petitioner has preferred the instant petition under Article 226
& 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and Section 147 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, seeking the following reliefs:-
a) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to permit the
petitioner and respondent No.2 to compound the
offence punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 arising out of
Criminal Case No. 313 of 2024, in exercise of powers
under Section 147 of the said Act;
b) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and set
aside the Judgment and Order dated 02.05.2026
Page 1 of 7
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Oct 29 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 29 15:41:10 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/14651/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240762392026)
passed by the Ld. Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bayad, District Aravalli in Criminal Case
No. 313 of 2024 (Annexure A), including the
conviction and all sentences imposed thereunder,
and to acquit the petitioner of the offence charged;
c) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the
present petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased
to stay the execution, implementation and operation
of the Judgment and Order dated 02.05.2026 passed
in Criminal Case No. 313 of 2024, including the
sentence warrant issued pursuant thereto, and to
direct that no coercive steps be taken against the
petitioner;
d) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant such
other and further relief as may be deemed just and
proper in the interest of justice.
2. Issue Rule to the respondents, returnable forthwith. Learned APP,
Mr. K B Antani accepts and waives service of Rule on behalf of
respondent No.1 - State. Learned advocate, Mr. Kirtan H Mistry accepts
and waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent No.2. He seeks time
and is hereby granted one week’s time to file his vakalatnama on behalf
of respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 – Mr. Jagdishbhai Narsinhbhai
Patel is present before this Court through virtual mode and he has been
duly identified by his advocate.
3. It emerges from the record that the respondent No.2 herein –
complainant has preferred a complaint under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 before the learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Bayad, which came to registered as Criminal Case
Page 2 of 7
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Oct 29 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 29 15:41:10 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/14651/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240762392026)
No.313 of 2024. The said Criminal Case came to be decided vide
Judgment and Order dated 02.05.2026, whereby the petitioner herein
was held guilty for the offenses punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, was convicted and directed to
undergo simple imprisonment for one year, and was further directed to
pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the respondent No.2 -
complainant.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter has
now been amicably settled between the parties, i.e., petitioner and
respondent No.2 – complainant. He submitted that the offense is
compoundable. In such circumstances, he prayed that the impugned
Judgment and Order dated 02.05.2026 passed by the Ld. Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bayad, District Aravalli in Criminal Case No.
313 of 2024 as well as all consequential proceedings arising therefrom
qua the present petitioner herein be quashed and set aside. In support
of his contentions, he 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.
Page 3 of 7
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Oct 29 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 29 15:41:10 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/14651/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240762392026)
6. In response, respondent No.2/original complainant appearing in
person along with his counsel, admitted the factum of compromise and
admitted that he has received the entire amount. In view thereof, he
submitted that he has no objections if the impugned judgment and
order as well as all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the
present petitioner herein is quashed and set aside.
7. Per contra, learned APP appearing for respondent No.1 – State
submitted considering the facts and circumstances of the case, an
appropriate order may be passed.
8. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsels for
the parties and having gone through the records, it appears that vide
impugned Judgment and Order dated 02.05.2026 passed by the Ld.
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bayad, District Aravalli in Criminal
Case No. 313 of 2024, petitioner herein was held guilty for the offenses
punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881,
and was convicted and directed to undergo simple imprisonment for
one year, and was further directed to pay compensation of
Rs.2,00,000/- to the respondent No.2 - complainant. However, now the
matter has been amicably settled between the contesting parties and
respondent No.2 – complainant has filed his affidavit at Annexure - B,
thereby admitting the factum of compromise. Para Nos.4 & 5 of the said
affidavit reads thus:-
“4. I have entered into this settlement voluntarily,
of my own free will, and without any coercion,
pressure or undue influence from any person.
5. I consent to the compounding of the offence
Page 4 of 7
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Oct 29 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 29 15:41:10 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/14651/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240762392026)
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881 and have no objection if this Hon'ble
Court quashes and sets aside the Judgment and
Order dated 02.05.2026 passed in Criminal Case
No. 313 of 2024 and acquits the petitioner. I shall
not initiate any further civil or criminal proceedings
against the petitioner in respect of the said
transaction.”
9. Thus in view 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/complaint and the Criminal
Case against the petitioner-accused would be an unnecessary
harassment to the petitioner - accused. It further appears that the trial
would be a futile exercise and further continuing with the criminal
proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR/complaint and the Criminal
Case would amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, to secure the
ends of justice, the impugned FIR/complaint as well as the proceedings
of the Criminal Case, and all other consequential proceedings arising
therefrom are required to be quashed and set aside in exercise of the
powers conferred under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023.
10. This Court has also referred the decision rendered by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of SANJABIJ TARI V/S KISHORE S
BORCAR & ANR , reported in 2025 LawSuit(SC) 1302, wherein it is
held that since a large number of cheque bouncing cases are still
Page 5 of 7
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Oct 29 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 29 15:41:10 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/14651/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240762392026)
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.”
11. Thus, considering the overall submissions and the fact that the
parties have amicably settled the dispute, present petition stands
allowed. As such, the impugned Judgment and Order dated 02.05.2026
passed by the Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bayad, District
Aravalli in Criminal Case No. 313 of 2024 as well as all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom qua the present petitioner herein is
Page 6 of 7
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Oct 29 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 29 15:41:10 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/14651/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240762392026)
hereby be quashed and set aside. In view of the quashment of the FIR/
complaint and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, the
petitioner shall be released forthwith, if not required in connection with
any other case.
12. 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 the
receipt of copy of this order.
13. 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.
14. Direct service is permitted. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
ARUN
Page 7 of 7
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Oct 29 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 29 15:41:10 IST 2026