R/SCR.A/10407/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/08/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 10407 of 2025 ============================================ KIRITBHAI KANTILAL NIMBARK Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ============================================ Appearance: MR RAHIM A CHAUHAN(10864) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS VRUNDA SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ============================================ CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 20/08/2025 ORAL ORDER 1) By way of present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Sections 497 and 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, the petitioner seeks quashment of impugned judgment dated 06.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Surendranagar in Criminal Case No.1583 of 2023. 2) Having heard learned advocate for the respective parties and perusing the record it appears that the petitioner is convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and after conviction warrant under Section 418(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was issued but until and unless the sentence is not suspended the question does not arise. Therefore, as the petitioner has directly approached this Court challenging the judgment and order of conviction without resorting to the alternative statutory remedy available to the petitioner and hence, as per the law laid down by this Court in the case of Bhoomi Exim & Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. Page 1 of 3 R/SCR.A/10407/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/08/2025 (SCR.A/12711/2023, dtd. 07.10.2023); Arun Shankar Shukla Vs. State of U.P & Ors, reported in 1999 (6) SCC 146 and Hamida Vs. Rashid alias Rasheed and Ors. reported in (2008) 1 SCC 474, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hamida (Supra) has been pleased to observe in Head- note B as under: “B. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – S.482 – Inherent powers of High Court – Scope – Limits of – Alternative remedy – Availability of – Effect – Held, has to be exercised sparingly with circumspection and in rare cases and that too to correct patent illegalities or when some miscarriage of justice is done – Practice of High Courts in entertaining petitions under S.482, when there was an effective alternative remedy available, deprecated – Ends of justice would be better served if valuable time of the Court is spent in hearing those appeals rather than entertaining petitions under S.482 CrPC at an interlocutory stage which are often filed with some oblique motive in order to circumvent the prescribed procedure, as in the instant case, or to delay the trial which enable the accused to win over the witnesses by money or muscle power or they may become disinterested in giving evidence, ultimately resulting in miscarriage of justice (paras 7, 8 and 13)” 3) It is also appropriate to refer to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manoj Vasudev Sompura Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2024 (3) GLR 1737 and Sharad Jethalal Savla Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. in CRMA No.19862/2025. 4) In view of the above decisions as well as the fact that statutory remedy is available under law, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 528 of the BNSS. Accordingly, present petition is dismissed. It is made clear that R/SCR.A/10407/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/08/2025 this Court has not gone into the merits of the matter. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file appropriate proceedings before appropriate forum. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ANKIT Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE I, at High Court of Gujarat on 20/08/2025 14:51:49