High Court of Gujarat

RAJUBHAI SANKABHAI RABARIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

Disposal: 35-ANY OTHER MODE @ ADM.STAGE
Bench: P M RAVAL

Holding

The court held that, as the offence under Section 138 NI Act is compoundable and the parties have settled the dispute with the complainant's consent, the judgment and order may be quashed and the accused acquitted.

Summary

Rajubhai Sankabhai Rabari was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, a decision affirmed by the Principal Sessions Judge. He filed a miscellaneous application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita seeking to quash the judgment, alleging that the dispute with the original complainant, Yadav Bhrugunathsinh, had been amicably settled and the cheque amount of Rs.1,40,000 had been paid. The complainant filed an affidavit confirming the settlement and expressing no objection to the quashing of the orders. The court noted that the offence is compoundable under Section 147 of the NI Act and, with the consent of both parties, allowed the application. Consequently, the judgment and orders were set aside, the applicant was acquitted, the deposited amount was directed to be released to the complainant, and the applicant was ordered to be released from jail.

Issues considered

Whether a conviction under the compoundable offence of Section 138 NI Act can be set aside on the basis of settlement between the parties under Section 528 BNSS.
Whether the court has jurisdiction to quash a criminal judgment when the complainant consents and the offence is compoundable.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023s. 528
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881s. 138, s. 147

Subjects

compoundable offenceSection 138 NI Actsettlementquashing of convictionSection 528 BNSScriminal miscellaneous applicationacquittalrelease from jail

Judgment

     R/CR.MA/12711/2026                          ORDER DATED: 09/06/2026




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD


       R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (FOR CONSENT
               QUASHING) NO. 12711 of 2026

================================================
            RAJUBHAI SANKABHAI RABARI
                         Versus
              STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
================================================
Appearance:
MR MANISH J PATEL(2131) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR JAY MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

                             Date : 09/06/2026

                             ORAL ORDER


1.      Learned advocate Mr. Bhavik Pandya states that he has
instructions to appear on behalf of the respondent No. 2 herein –
original complainant and shall file his Vakalatnama before the
Registry. Registry to accept his Vakalatnama.


2.      Rule.      Learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as
learned advocate appearing for the original complainant waive
service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respective respondents.


3.       Considering the issue involved in the present application,
with the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the

                                 Page 1 of 4
     R/CR.MA/12711/2026                         ORDER DATED: 09/06/2026




respective parties as well as considering the fact that the dispute
amongst the applicant and original complainant has been resolved
amicably, this application is taken up for final disposal today as
alleged offence is compoundable.


4.       By this application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”), the applicant
has prayed for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order
dated 24.09.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Gandhinagar in Criminal Case No. 1334 of 2022, whereby the trial
Court held the applicant guilty for the offence under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “NI Act”) and
sentenced, against which, an appeal being Criminal Appeal No.
372 of 2025 came to be filed, which was rejected by the learned
Principal Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar vide judgment and order
dated 01.06.2026 confirming the judgment and order of the trial
Court. Aggrieved thereby, this application is filed.


5.       Learned advocate for the applicant has taken this Court
through the factual matrix arising out of the present application.
However, it is submitted that the parties have amicably resolved
the issue. It is further submitted that in view of the fact that the
dispute is resolved, present application deserves consideration.


6.       Learned advocate for original complainant has reiterated
the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the applicant.


                              Page 2 of 4
     R/CR.MA/12711/2026                          ORDER DATED: 09/06/2026




Original complainant – Yadav Bhrugunathsinh Shrihirasinh
affirms the factum of settlement. He has also filed an affidavit,
which is on record, stating therein that he has no objection if the
judgment and orders impugned in this application are quashed
and set aside. He also states that he has filed the affidavit without
any coercion, threat or undue influence, on his own volition. On
inquiry made by the Court, the original complainant has declared
before this Court that the dispute between the applicant and the
original complainant is resolved and cheque amount has already
been received by the original complainant and therefore, now the
grievance stands redressed. It is, therefore, submitted that the
present application may be allowed.


7.       Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
State has submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case
and in view of the extant law, Court may pass appropriate orders.


8.       Considering the fact that the dispute is settled between the
parties and that the applicant has paid the due amount to the
complainant and said fact has been confirmed by the complainant,
as the offence is compoundable one at any stage under Section 147
of the NI Act.


9.      Resultantly, this application is allowed. The judgment and
orders impugned in this application, referred to herein above, are
hereby quashed and set aside. The applicant is acquitted of the


                                Page 3 of 4
         R/CR.MA/12711/2026                                                             ORDER DATED: 09/06/2026




  present charge.


  9.1        The amount of Rs.1,40,000/- deposited before the first
  appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No. 372 of 2025 be given to the
  original complainant after due verification to which, the applicant
  – accused has no objection.


  9.2        The applicant is reported to be in jail.                                        Accordingly, the
  applicant is directed to be released from jail forthwith, if he is not
  required in any other case.


   10.         Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.                                                   Direct
   service is permitted.


                                                                                             [ P. M. Raval, J. ]
  hiren/MKTJ/61tss9626




Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: HIREN VIRENDRABHAI MER(HC00351), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 09/06/2026 17:09:57




                                                         Page 4 of 4

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "compoundable offence"Sign in to search