Gujarat HC Quashes Cheque-Bounce Conviction After Settlement, Orders Accused To Pay ₹30,000 To Legal Aid

In brief

The question

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its powers under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash the conviction and related proceedings following the parties’ settlement

The court held

The application was allowed, and the judgment and order dated 11 November 2024 in Criminal Case No. 6963 of 2019 was quashed.

It also directed

The Court also ordered that the applicant be released forthwith if not required in another case

The applicant was directed to deposit Rs. 30,000 with the Gujarat High Court Legal Aid Services Authority within three weeks; failing deposit, the amount was recoverable as a fine and as arrears of land revenue

Rule was made absolute

01Facts

The applicant was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mehsana, in Criminal Case No. 6963 of 2019, by judgment dated 11 November 2024.

pp. 1–2, 4

He applied under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash that judgment and the related proceedings.

pp. 1–2, 4

The parties informed the Court that they had settled the dispute; the complainant appeared, was identified by counsel, filed an affidavit in support, and consented to quashing.

pp. 1–2, 4

The cheque amount was Rs. 4,00,000

pp. 1–2, 4

02Issues

i.1. Whether the High Court should exercise its powers under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash the conviction and related proceedings following the parties’ settlement

pp. 1–3

ii.2. Whether a 7.5% cost should be imposed where payment is made before the High Court in connection with compounding a cheque-dishonour offence

pp. 3–4

03Law Applied

Section 528 of the BNSS empowers the High Court to make orders necessary to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of court

pp. 2–3

The Court relied on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Manoj Sharma v. State and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, as well as State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, in considering whether criminal proceedings could be quashed in light of the settlement and the interests of justice

p. 2

It also applied the graded-cost guidelines set out in Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar, under which a High Court may permit compounding where payment is made before it on payment of costs equal to 7.5% of the cheque amount

pp. 3–4

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138

04Reasoning

The Court accepted that the complainant had settled the dispute and expressly had no objection to quashing; the complainant’s presence and supporting affidavit confirmed that position

pp. 1–2

In those circumstances, the Court considered continuation of the criminal proceedings an unnecessary harassment, a futile exercise and an abuse of process, and found quashing necessary to secure the ends of justice

pp. 2–3

Applying the guideline for payment before a High Court, it fixed costs at 7.5% of the Rs. 4,00,000 cheque amount, namely Rs. 30,000

pp. 3–4