BHARTIBEN MURLIDHAR PARIYANI (SINDHI) vs STATE OF GUJARAT
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
R/SCR.A/10438/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240535132026)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 10438 of 2026
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
BHARTIBEN MURLIDHAR PARIYANI (SINDHI) & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. DEWANSH SURESHBHAI KHANDELWAL(14519) for the Applicant(s)
No. 1,2
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS. JIRGA JHAVERI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 04/11/2026
JUDGMENT
1. The Petitioners have 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) admit and allow this Special Criminal Application;
b) permit the petitioners to compound the offence
under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881, upon payment/tender of Rs.3,30,000/-
(Rupees Three Lakh Thirty Thousand only) to
Respondent No.2 as awarded by the Ld. Trial Court,
Page 1 of 8
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 14:41:28 IST 2026
R/SCR.A/10438/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240535132026)
or as may be directed by this Hon'ble Court;
c) consequent to (b) above, quash and set aside the
Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence
dated 09.11.2022 passed by the 8th Court of Ld.
Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gandhinagar in
Criminal Case No. 9612 of 2019, and quash the said
Criminal Case No. 9612 of 2019 and all proceedings
emanating therefrom, including any consequential
order/warrant passed for execution of the sentence;
d) quash and set aside any Non-Bailable Warrant, if
issued, pursuant to the impugned Judgment and
Order, or in the alternative direct that the same be
converted into a Bailable Warrant on such terms and
conditions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit;
e) pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the
present Petition, stay/suspend further execution and
coercive process. including any Non-Bailable
Warrant, pursuant to the impugned Judgment and
Order dated 09.11.2022 passed in Criminal Case No.
9612 of 2019, and permit the petitioners to deposit
the amount tendered as directed by this Hon'ble
Court;
f) grant ex-parte ad-interim relief in terms of prayer (e)
above;
g) pass any other or further order(s) as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of
justice.
2. Issue Rule to the respondents, returnable forthwith. Learned APP
accepts and waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent No.1 -
Page 2 of 8
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 14:41:28 IST 2026
R/SCR.A/10438/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240535132026)
State. Learned advocate, Mr. Sanjay B Prajapathi 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. Amrutbhai Narayanbhai Chudi
is present before this Court through virtual mode and he has been duly
identified by his advocate. The affidavit filed him is taken on record.
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 which came to registered as Criminal
Case. The said Criminal Case came to be decided vide Judgment and
Order dated 09.11.2022, whereby the petitioners herein were 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.3,30,000/- to the respondent No.2 – complainant
together with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the
compliant, in default of which further simple imprisonment for three
months.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the matter has
now been amicably settled between the parties, i.e., petitioners and
respondent No.2 – complainant. He submitted that the offense is
compoundable. In such circumstances, he prayed that the impugned
Judgment and Order as well as all consequential proceedings arising
therefrom qua the present petitioners be quashed and set aside. In
Page 3 of 8
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 14:41:28 IST 2026
R/SCR.A/10438/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240535132026)
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.
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 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 petitioners are 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
the impugned Judgment and Order, petitioners were 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.3,30,000/- to the respondent No.2 – complainant together with
Page 4 of 8
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 14:41:28 IST 2026
R/SCR.A/10438/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240535132026)
interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the compliant, in
default of which further simple imprisonment for three months.
However, now the matter has been amicably settled between the
contesting parties and respondent No.2 – complainant has placed his
affidavit on record, thereby admitting the factum of compromise. Para
Nos.5 to 9 of the said affidavit reads thus:-
“5. I say that pursuant to discussion between the
Petitioners, myself and my wife, we have amicably
and mutually agreed to settle all our disputes in
relation to the said Complaint as well as in relation
to the Criminal Case No.109509 of 2019 and
dismissed Criminal Case No.3811 of 2021.
6. I say that pursuant to discussions and talks
between the Petitioners, myself, and my wife, the
Petitioners have agreed to pay an aggregate
amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs
only) towards the full and final settlement of all
the disputes and differences arising between the
petitioners, myself and my wife.
7. I say that pursuant to the settlement the
Petitioner has agreed to pay me an amount of
Rs.3,30,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Thirty
Thousand only) vide Demand Draft bearing
No.848131, dated 01.09.2026, drawn in my name
and an amount of Rs.3,30,000/- (Rupees Three
Lakh Thirty Thousand only), which is paid in cash,
qua full and final settlement of all disputes and
differences arising in relation of the said Complaint
and Complaint Case No.3811 of 2021. I say that
the Petitioner has handed over this Cash of
Rs.3,30,000/-(Rupees Three Lakh Thirty Thousand
only) to me in the Court premises at the time of
execution of this Affidavit and I hereby
Page 5 of 8
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 14:41:28 IST 2026
R/SCR.A/10438/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240535132026)
acknowledge the receipt of this cash amount.
8. I say that the Petitioner has handed over to me
a demand draft of an amount of Rs.3,30,000/-
(Rupees Three Lakh Thirty Thousand only) and a
copy of the same is marked as Annexure "A".
9. I say that I have no further claim and/or
demand of any nature whatsoever against the
Petitioners and I undertake not to raise any
further claim and/or demand against the
Petitioners in relation to the said Complaint and
the transaction forming part therein.”
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 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/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
Page 6 of 8
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 14:41:28 IST 2026
R/SCR.A/10438/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240535132026)
BORCAR & ANR , reported in 2025 LawSuit(SC) 1302, wherein it is
held that since a 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.”
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 FIR/complaint, Judgment and Order
dated 09.11.2022 passed in Criminal Case No. 9612 of 2019 as well as
Page 7 of 8
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 14:41:28 IST 2026
R/SCR.A/10438/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240535132026)
all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the present
petitioners are hereby be quashed and set aside. In view of the
quashment of the FIR/complaint and the subsequent proceedings
arising therefrom, the petitioners shall be released forthwith, if not
required in connection with any other case.
12. The present petitioners are 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 four weeks from the
receipt of copy of this order.
13. If the petitioners - 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 8 of 8
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 14:41:28 IST 2026