SIKANDARALI FAKIR MOHAMMAD SAIYED vs STATE OF GUJARAT

Court
Gujarat High Court

R/SCR.A/15472/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2026
(GJHC240548592026)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (FOR CONSENT QUASHING) NO.
15472 of 2026
==========================================================
SIKANDARALI FAKIR MOHAMMAD SAIYED
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. JAY M THAKKAR(6677) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HARDIK MEHTA, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

Date : 28/10/2026

JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives
service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of respondent -
State. Learned advocate Mr. Bhavik Samani waives service of
notice of Rule for and on behalf of respondent No.2-original
complainant.
2. The present application is filed under section 528 of
Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashment of
the judgment and order dated 9.10.2023 passed in Criminal
Case No.522/2021 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge
& Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Godhra &
judgment and order dated 21.1.2026 passed by the learned
Addl. Sessions Judge , Godhra in Criminal Appeal No.103 of
2023, whereby, the present petitioner was convicted for the
offence punishable under section 138 of the N.I.Act.
3. At the outset, it is submitted by learned advocates for
Page 1 of 4
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Oct 28 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 28 17:43:49 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/15472/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2026
(GJHC240548592026)
the respective parties that the dispute is resolved between the
parties and the complainant has given no objection if the
order of conviction is quashed and set aside. The complainant
is present before this Court, identified by the learned
advocate on his/her behalf who has filed an affidavit in
support of the petitioner.
4. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties, as well as considering the facts and
circumstances arising out of the present application,
settlement affidavit and also taking into consideration the
decisions rendered 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 , it
appears that continuing further with the criminal proceedings
in relation to the impugned FIR and the Criminal Case against
the applicants-accused would be an unnecessary harassment
to the applicants-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
Page 2 of 4
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Oct 28 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 28 17:43:49 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/15472/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2026
(GJHC240548592026)
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.
5. 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,
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.”
Page 3 of 4
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Oct 28 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 28 17:43:49 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/15472/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2026
(GJHC240548592026)
6. Considering the overall submissions and the fact that the
parties have amicably settled the dispute, present application
is allowed. The judgment and order dated 9.10.2023 passed in
Criminal Case No.522/2021 by the learned Principal Senior
Civil Judge & Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Godhra & judgment and order dated 21.1.2026 passed by the
learned Addl. Sessions Judge , Godhra in Criminal Appeal
No.103 of 2023 are hereby quashed. In view of the quashment
of the FIR and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom,
the applicant shall be released forthwith, if not required in
connection with any other case.
7. The present petitioner is directed to deposit an amount
equivalent to 7.5% of the cheque amount i.e. Rs.77,475/- with
the DLSA, Godhra within a period of two weeks from today.
The remaining amount deposited by the petitioner either
before the learned Sessions Court or before the learned trial
Court shall be disbursed to the petitioner.
8. 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.
Rule is made absolute accordingly.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SHEKHAR P. BARVE
Page 4 of 4
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Oct 28 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 28 17:43:49 IST 2026