Chiragsingh Mansukhsingh Rajput vs State Of Gujarat on 20 May, 2026

    0
    19
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Gujarat High Court

    Chiragsingh Mansukhsingh Rajput vs State Of Gujarat on 20 May, 2026

                                                                                                              NEUTRAL CITATION
    
    
    
    
                               R/SCR.A/6931/2026                                ORDER DATED: 20/05/2026
    
                                                                                                              undefined
    
    
    
    
                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
    
                           R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (FOR CONSENT QUASHING) NO.
                                                   6931 of 2026
                          ==========================================================
                                              CHIRAGSINGH MANSUKHSINGH RAJPUT
                                                            Versus
                                                   STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
                          ==========================================================
                          Appearance:
                          MR. KURVEN K DESAI(7786) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
                          MR. ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                          ==========================================================
                            CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL K. VYAS
    
                                                            Date : 20/05/2026
                                                             ORAL ORDER

    1. Learned advocate Mr. Neel Vasant appears and submits

    that Mr. Yuvraj G. Thakore has instructions to appear on behalf

    SPONSORED

    of the respondent no.2 – complainant. He is permitted to file

    his appearance. Registry shall accept his vakalatnama.

    2. By way of preferring the present application under

    Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023,

    the applicant-accused seeks to invoke the inherent powers of

    this Court, praying to quash and set-aside the judgment and

    order dated 19.02.2026 passed by the learned 20 th Additional

    Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad City, in Criminal Case

    No.180410 of 2024, for the offence punishable under Section

    138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as well as all other

    Page 1 of 5

    Uploaded by DEEPAK GEHLOT(HC02361) on Wed May 20 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 20 21:27:02 IST 2026
    NEUTRAL CITATION

    R/SCR.A/6931/2026 ORDER DATED: 20/05/2026

    undefined

    consequential proceedings arising pursuant thereto.

    3. Today, when the matter is called out, the complainant,

    who is personally present before this Court, has produced his

    identity proof as well as the affidavit, which are ordered to be

    taken on record. In the said affidavit, the complainant has

    categorically stated that he has received his dues of

    Rs.3,00,000/- and the dispute has been amicably resolved with

    the applicant. The complainant has further stated that he has

    no grievance or ill-will against the applicant.

    4. Considering the issue involved in the present application

    as well as considering the fact that the dispute has been

    amicably resolved with the applicant, with the consent of

    learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the

    present application is taken up for final disposal.

    5. RULE returnable forthwith. Learned APP Mr. Rohan Raval

    waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the

    respondent no.1 – State and learned advocate Mr. Neel Vasant

    waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the

    respondent no.2 – complainant.

    Page 2 of 5

    Uploaded by DEEPAK GEHLOT(HC02361) on Wed May 20 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 20 21:27:02 IST 2026

    NEUTRAL CITATION

    R/SCR.A/6931/2026 ORDER DATED: 20/05/2026

    undefined

    6. The complainant, who is personally present before this

    Court, has categorically stated that the dispute has been

    amicably resolved with the applicant and he has no objection if

    the application is allowed and the impugned judgment and

    order is quashed and set-aside.

    7. The relevant paragraphs of the affidavit filed by the

    complainant – Ruchit Charulbhai Shah, read thus :

    “2. That pursuant to the order being passed, settlement has been arrived
    Petitioner and the undersigned a between the Original-Complainant and
    the Petitioner has already paid a Demand Draft of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees
    Three Lacs Only) dated 06.05.2026. Annexed herewith and marked as
    Annexure RR is the copy of the said Demand Draft.

    3. That the said Demand Draft is accepted by the undersigned – Original
    Complainant and thus now the Original Complainant does not wish to
    proceed with the matter and has no objection if the Conviction order
    passed by the Ld. 20th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, N. I Act Court
    No. 30 Ahmedabad is quashed and set aside.

    4. That the said affidavit is filed after an amicable settlement has been
    arrived at between me and the accused (Petitioner) and since the
    offences alleged against are personal in nature not affecting any interest
    of the State Government, I have agreed to compromise the entire dispute
    including the impugned complaint filed by me and the proceedings that
    have arisen pursuant to the filing of the complaint.

    5. I state and submit that this affidavit is filed without any pressure,
    coercion or force and I am bound to respect the same and therefore, I
    accord my consent to this Hon’ble Court to quash the Conviction order
    passed and all other consequential proceedings, against the petitioner
    original accused, which would serve the purpose of justice.”

    8. Thus, it appears from the aforesaid that to continue

    Page 3 of 5

    Uploaded by DEEPAK GEHLOT(HC02361) on Wed May 20 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 20 21:27:02 IST 2026
    NEUTRAL CITATION

    R/SCR.A/6931/2026 ORDER DATED: 20/05/2026

    undefined

    further with the proceedings pursuant to the impugned

    judgment and order would be a futile exercise and the

    same would amount to abuse of process of law.

    9. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the

    respective parties as well as considering the facts and

    circumstances arising out of the present application and taking

    into consideration the decisions rendered in the cases of Gian

    Singh vs. State of Punjab & Another, 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 & Another, reported in (2009) 1

    GLH 31, Manoj Sharma vs. State & Others, reported in

    (2009) 1 GLH 190, and Narinder Singh & Others vs. State

    of Punjab & Another, reported in (2014) 2 Crime 67 (SC) as

    well as State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal, reported in AIR

    1992 SC 604, it appears that continuing further with the

    criminal proceedings pursuant to the impugned judgment and

    order would be a futile exercise and the same would amount to

    abuse of process of law. Hence, to secure the ends of justice,

    the impugned judgment and order as well as all other

    consequential proceedings arising pursuant thereto are

    Page 4 of 5

    Uploaded by DEEPAK GEHLOT(HC02361) on Wed May 20 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 20 21:27:02 IST 2026
    NEUTRAL CITATION

    R/SCR.A/6931/2026 ORDER DATED: 20/05/2026

    undefined

    required to be quashed and set-aside in exercise of the powers

    conferred under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

    Sanhita, 2023.

    10. In the result, the application is allowed. The judgment

    and order dated 19.02.2026 passed by the learned 20 th

    Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad City, in

    Criminal Case No.180410 of 2024, for the offence punishable

    under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as well

    as all other consequential proceedings arising pursuant thereto

    are hereby ordered to be quashed and set-aside qua the

    present applicant.

    11. In view of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the

    case of Sanjabij Tari Vs. Kishore S. Borcar [2025 INSC

    1158], the applicant is directed to deposit 7.5 % of the cheque

    amount, by way of costs, with the District Legal Service

    Authority, Ahmedabad, within a period of 2 weeks from the

    date of this order.

    12. Rule made absolute. Direct service is permitted.

    (VIMAL K. VYAS, J)
    DEEPAK GEHLOT

    Page 5 of 5

    Uploaded by DEEPAK GEHLOT(HC02361) on Wed May 20 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 20 21:27:02 IST 2026



    Source link

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here