ZUBIYA TRADERS THRO SALMAN AHMED QURESHI vs STATE OF GUJARAT

Court
Gujarat High Court

R/SCR.A/15195/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2026
(GJHC240797652026)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 15195 of 2026

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI

==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
ZUBIYA TRADERS THRO SALMAN AHMED QURESHI & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. ANMOL D GANWANI(17435) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR PM DAVE(263) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. DHAWAN JAISWAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI

Date : 28/10/2026

JUDGMENT
1. The Petitioner has preferred the instant petition under Article 226
& 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking the following
reliefs:-
a) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to admit and allow this
application;
b) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to quash and set
aside the judgment and order of conviction and
sentence dated 16.02.2026 (Annexure-A) passed by
the learned 18th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
City Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No.32835 of 2024,
Page 1 of 7
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 18:41:47 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/15195/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2026
(GJHC240797652026)
along with all consequential proceedings including
the non-bailable warrant issued against the
Petitioners, in view of the amicable settlement
arrived at between the Petitioners and Respondent
so No.2-original complainant and the No Objection
Certificate issued by Respondent No.2, and thereby
secure the ends of justice;
c) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the
present petition, Your Lordships may please to stay
the operation execution, and implementation of the
judgment and order dated 16.02.2026 (Annexure-A)
passed by the learned 18th Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Ahmedabad City in Criminal Case
No.32835 of 2024 (Annexure-A) and further be
pleased to stay the execution of the non-bailable
warrant issued against the Petitioners;
d) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to pass any other and
further orders as may be deemed fit and proper.
2. Issue Rule to the respondents, returnable forthwith. Learned APP,
Mr. Dhawan Jaiswal accepts and waives service of Rule on behalf of
respondent No.1 - State. Learned advocate, Mr. P M Dave accepts and
waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent No.2. Respondent No.2
– Tata Capital Limited is represented by Mr. Chiragkumar A Barot, its
authorized officer. He is present before this Court and he has been duly
identified by learned advocate for respondent No.2.
3. It emerges from the record that the respondent No.2 herein is
the complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881, pursuant to which vide judgment and order of conviction and
sentence dated 16.02.2026 (Annexure-A) passed by the learned 18th
Page 2 of 7
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 18:41:47 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/15195/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2026
(GJHC240797652026)
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, City Ahmedabad in Criminal Case
No.32835 of 2024, the petitioner herein was 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 towards the cheque
amount along with simple interest at the rate of 5% per annum from
the date of return of cheque, with direction to undergo six months’
simple imprisonment in default of payment of compensation.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter has
now been amicably settled between the parties, i.e., petitioner and
respondent No.2 – complainant. He submitted that the offense is
compoundable. In such circumstances, he prayed that the impugned
FIR/compliant and impugned Judgments/Orders of conviction dated
16.02.2026, as well as all consequential proceedings arising therefrom
qua the present petitioner herein 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.
Page 3 of 7
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 18:41:47 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/15195/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2026
(GJHC240797652026)
6. In response, respondent No.2/original complainant appearing
through its authorized representative along with its counsel, admitted
the factum of compromise and admitted that the amount has been
recieved. In view thereof, he submitted that he has no objections if the
impugned FIR/complaint, impugned judgment and order as well as all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the present petitioner
herein is 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
respondent No.2 herein is the complainant under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, pursuant to which vide judgment
and order of conviction and sentence dated 16.02.2026 (Annexure-A)
passed by the learned 18th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, City
Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No.32835 of 2024, the petitioner herein
was 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 towards the cheque amount along with simple
interest at the rate of 5% per annum from the date of return of cheque,
with direction to undergo six months’ simple imprisonment in case of
default of payment of compensation. However, now the matter has
been amicably settled between the contesting parties and respondent
No.2 – complainant has filed its affidavit, thereby admitting the factum
Page 4 of 7
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 18:41:47 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/15195/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2026
(GJHC240797652026)
of compromise. Para No.5 of the said affidavit reads thus:-
“5. I further say and submits that thereafter,
petitioner-ori. accused had settled the matter with
the respondent no. 2-TATA Capital Limited and the
outstanding dues is already paid to the respondent
no. 2- TATA Capital Limited and loan account of
the petitioner-accused is closed and payment
receipt dtd.05.09.2026 & no due certificate
dtd.28.09.2026 is already annexed at Annexure C
& D respectively to this petition.”
9. Thus, in view of the 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 against the
petitioner-accused would be an unnecessary harassment to the
petitioner - accused. Further trial would be a futile exercise and
continuing with the criminal proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR/
complaint 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 5 of 7
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 18:41:47 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/15195/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2026
(GJHC240797652026)
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, impugned
Judgment/Order of conviction as well as all consequential proceedings
Page 6 of 7
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 18:41:47 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/15195/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2026
(GJHC240797652026)
arising therefrom qua the present petitioner is hereby quashed and set
aside. 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.
13. 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 the
receipt of copy of this order.
14. 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.
15. Direct service is permitted. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
ARUN
Page 7 of 7
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 18:41:47 IST 2026