MURLIDHAR CHANDERLAL PARYANI (SINDHI) vs STATE OF GUJARAT

Court
Gujarat High Court

R/SCR.A/10439/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240535182026)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 10439 of 2026

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI

==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
MURLIDHAR CHANDERLAL PARYANI (SINDHI)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. DEWANSH SURESHBHAI KHANDELWAL(14519) for the Applicant(s)
No. 1
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, with a principal prayer to quash and
set aside the impugned Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence
th
dated 11.12.2024 passed by the 18 Court of Ld. Addl. Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Gandhinagar in Criminal Case No. 109509 of 2019, and
quash the said Criminal Case and all proceedings emanating therefrom,
including any consequential order/warrant passed for execution of the
sentence.
Page 1 of 7
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 14:41:28 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/10439/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240535182026)
2. Issue Rule to the respondents, returnable forthwith. Learned APP
accepts and waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent No.1 -
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 – Ms. Hetalben Amrutbhai Chudi is
present before this Court through virtual mode and she has been duly
identified by her advocate. Her affidavit 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 No. 109509 of 2019. The said Criminal Case came to be decided
vide Judgment and Order dated 11.12.2024, 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.3,40,000/- to the respondent No.2 –
complainant together with interest @ 9% 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
Page 2 of 7
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 14:41:28 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/10439/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240535182026)
Judgment and Order as well as all consequential proceedings arising
therefrom qua the present petitioners 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.
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
Page 3 of 7
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 14:41:28 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/10439/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240535182026)
for one year, and was further directed to pay compensation of
Rs.3,40,000/- to the respondent No.2 – complainant together with
interest @ 9% 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.9 to 11 of the said affidavit reads thus:-
“9. I say that I have no further claim and/or
demand of any nature whatsoever against the
Petitioner and/or his wife and I undertake not to
raise any further claim and/or demand against the
Petitioner or his wife in relation to the said
Complaint and the transaction forming part
therein.
10. I say that I am waiving all of my existing
claim of all nature against the Petitioner
abovenamed.
11. I say that I have no further claim and/or
demand of any nature whatsoever against the
Petitioner and/or his wife and I undertake not to
raise any further claim and/or demand against the
Petitioner or his wife 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
Page 4 of 7
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 14:41:28 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/10439/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240535182026)
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
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
Page 5 of 7
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 14:41:28 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/10439/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240535182026)
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 11.12.2024 passed in Criminal Case No. 109509 of 2019 as well
as 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
Page 6 of 7
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 14:41:28 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/10439/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240535182026)
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 Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 14:41:28 IST 2026