KOLI SAGAR BHANUDAS vs STATE OF GUJARAT

Court
Gujarat High Court

R/SCR.A/15282/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240803022026)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 15282 of 2026

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI

==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
KOLI SAGAR BHANUDAS
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JOGENDER U SINGH(5409) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ADITYA JADEJA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI

Date : 29/10/2026

JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith . Learned APP accepts and
waives service of Rule for the respondent-State. Learned
advocate Mr. Neel Dave, accepts and waives service of Rule
for the respondent No.2-original complainant.
2. Learned advocate Mr.Neel Dave undertakes to file
Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no.2. Registry is
directed to accept the same.
Page 1 of 5
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 04:00:48 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/15282/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240803022026)
3. The present petition is filed under Articles 226 of the
Constitution of India as well as section 528 of Bharatiya
Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashment of the
judgment and order dated 13.02.2026 passed by the learned
th
7 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.51,
Ahmedabad City in Criminal Case No. 194521 of 2024,
whereby, the present petitioner was convicted for the offence
punishable under section 138 of the N.I.Act.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner came to be convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. It
is submitted that the matter has been amicably settled
between the parties. Therefore, the judgment and order dated
13.02.2026 deserves to be set aside.
5. 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.
Page 2 of 5
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 04:00:48 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/15282/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240803022026)
6. Learned APP appearing for the respondent-State
submitted that, having regard to the facts and circumstances
of the case, appropriate orders may be passed.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2
vehemently submitted that the matter has been settled
amicably between the parties. He further su bmitted that
respondent No.2 has received the settlement amount. He has
tendered an affidavit dated 21.10.2026 filed by the original
complainant – respondent No.2, which is taken on record.
8. 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 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 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
Page 3 of 5
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 04:00:48 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/15282/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240803022026)
conferred under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
9. 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 4 of 5
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 04:00:48 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/15282/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240803022026)
10. Considering the overall submissions and the fact that the
parties have amicably settled the dispute, present application
is allowed. The judgment and order dated judgment and
th
order dated 13.02.2026 passed by the learned 7 Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.51, Ahmedabad City in
Criminal Case No. 194521 of 2024 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.
11. 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
four weeks from today.
12. 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.
13. Direct service is permitted. Rule is made absolute
accordingly.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
GIRISH
Page 5 of 5
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 04:00:48 IST 2026