SALMANKHAN MAHEMUDKHAN PATHAN vs STATE OF GUJARAT

Court
Gujarat High Court

R/SCR.A/14647/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240728832026)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (FOR CONSENT QUASHING) NO.
14647 of 2026

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
================================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
SALMANKHAN MAHEMUDKHAN PATHAN
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR K R MISHRA(6312) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. MH SHEKHAWAT(7194) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. KANVA ANTANI, APP, for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR. DEEPAK VIGORA, for the Respondent No.2
================================================================
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. Deepak Vigora, waives service of notice of Rule for
and on behalf of respondent No.2-original complainant. Learned
counsel Mr. Sagar Pandya is permitted to filed his Vakalatnmma.
2. The present petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya
Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashment of the judgment
and order dated 18.04.2026 passed in Criminal Case No.5801 of
th
2020 by the learned 7 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Court No.51, Ahmedabad City, whereby, the present petitioner
Page 1 of 5
Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Thu Oct 29 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 29 14:06:52 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/14647/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240728832026)
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 vide judgment
and order dated 18.04.2026 passed in Criminal Case No.5801 of
th
2020 by the learned 7 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Court No.51, Ahmedabad City. He submitted that the matter has
been amicably settled between the parties. Therefore, the
judgment and order dated 18.04.2026 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 14:06:52 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/14647/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240728832026)
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. Respondent No. 2,
Manoharsinh Bariya, appearing in person through Video
Conferencing and has been identified by learned counsel, also
substantiated the fact that the dispute has been amiably settled
and confirmed that he has received the amount.
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 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 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
Page 3 of 5
Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Thu Oct 29 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 29 14:06:52 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/14647/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240728832026)
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.”
8. Considering the overall submissions and the fact that the
Page 4 of 5
Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Thu Oct 29 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 29 14:06:52 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/14647/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240728832026)
parties have amicably settled the dispute, present petition is
allowed . The judgment and order dated 18.04.2026 passed in
th
Criminal Case No.5801 of 2020 by the learned 7 Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Court No.51, Ahmedabad City, is hereby
quashed. In view of the quashment of the FIR and the 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 14:06:52 IST 2026