01Facts
The petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, by the 3rd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palanpur, in Criminal Case No. 6544 of 2024, by judgment dated 9 July 2026.
pp. 1–3, 5He petitioned under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing following an amicable settlement.
pp. 1–3, 5The complainant confirmed receipt of the settlement amount.
pp. 1–3, 502Issues
i.1. Whether the High Court should quash the conviction and consequential criminal proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS in light of the parties’ amicable settlement.
pp. 2–4ii.2. Whether quashing should be conditioned on payment of costs under the applicable guidelines for compounding an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act.
pp. 3–503Law Applied
The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, alongside Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, to quash criminal proceedings where settlement makes their continuation an abuse of process and quashing is required to secure the ends of justice.
pp. 2, 3–4It relied on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, Nikhil Merchant v. CBI, Manoj Sharma v. State, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab and State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal concerning quashing of criminal proceedings in appropriate cases.
p. 3It also referred to Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar, which provides for costs of 7.5% of the cheque amount when payment is made before a High Court in revision or appeal.
pp. 3–4Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138
04Reasoning
The complainant confirmed that the dispute had been amicably settled and the settlement amount received.
p. 3The Court concluded that, in these circumstances, continuing the criminal proceedings would cause unnecessary harassment, make the trial a futile exercise and amount to an abuse of process.
pp. 3–4Applying the principles it cited and the Sanjabij Tari guidelines, the Court allowed the petition but required the petitioner to deposit 7.5% of the cheque amount with the Gujarat High Court Legal Aid Services Authority.
pp. 4–505Holding
The petition was allowed, and the judgment dated 9 July 2026 in Criminal Case No. 6544 of 2024 was quashed; the Court also ordered quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings.
pp. 4–5The petitioner was to be released forthwith if not required in another case.
p. 5He was directed to deposit 7.5% of the cheque amount within two weeks; failure to do so would result in recovery as a fine and as arrears of land revenue.
p. 5Original Court PDF
AMRATBHAI VAHJIBHAI RABARIvsSTATE OF GUJARAT
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
