R/CR.MA/8811/2026 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONSENT QUASHING) NO. 8811 of 2026 ========================================================== BHADRESH BHARATBHAI DALWADI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance: MR M.NISAR VAIDHYA(3386) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR. MAAZ SHAIKH, ADVOCATE FOR MR MOHDDANISH M BAREJIA(10612) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR. TIRTHRAJ PANDYA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL K. VYAS Date : 17/04/2026 ORAL ORDER 1. Learned advocate Mr. Utsav H. Khamar appears and submits that he has instructions to appear on behalf 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 16.01.2026 passed by the learned 32nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.46, Ahmedabad City, in Criminal Case No. 90313 of 2022, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as well as all R/CR.MA/8811/2026 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2026 other 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 submitted an affidavit, which are ordered to be taken on record. In the said affidavit, the complainant has categorically stated that he has no grievance against the applicant as he has received his dues. He has further submitted that the dispute has been amicably resolved with the applicant and there is no ill-will or any grievance amongst them. 4. Considering the issue involved in the present application as well as considering the fact that the dispute has been amicably resolved between the parties, with the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the present application is taken up for final disposal. 5. RULE returnable forthwith. Learned APP Mr. Tirthraj Pandya waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent no.1 – State and learned advocate Mr. Utsav H. Khamar waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent no.2 – complainant. 6. The complainant, who is personally present in the Court, has categorically stated before this Court that he has no objection if the application is allowed and the impugned R/CR.MA/8811/2026 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2026 judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 16.01.2026 passed by the learned 32nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.46, Ahmedabad City, in Criminal Case No. 90313 of 2022, is quashed and set-aside. 7. Thus, it appears from the aforesaid that to continue further with the proceedings pursuant to the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence would be a futile exercise and the same would amount to abuse of process of law. 8. The relevant paragraphs of the affidavit filed by the complainant – Tushar Shantilal Solanki (Proprietor of Vihan Finance), read thus : “4. It is submitted that after the Conviction Judgement passed against the present petitioner, I have amicably settled with the petitioner. I no longer wish to carry further proceedings in the said complaint/case filed against the petitioner. 5. That we have settled the dispute and I have received amount Rs. 1,00,000 through Case and thus I have settled the said complaint and thus I have no grievance against the present petitioner. 6. I say and submit that the I have received amount Rs. 1,00,000/- and we have settled the said complaint inter-se and thus I have no objection if the convicted judgement passed against the petitioner is quashed and setaside. 7. I say and submit that I am filing the present affidavit in support of the present quashing petition out of my free will and volition and without any force or coercion.” 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 R/CR.MA/8811/2026 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2026 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 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 required to be quashed and set-aside in exercise of the powers conferred 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 10. In the result, the application is allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 16.01.2026 passed by the learned 32nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.46, Ahmedabad City, in Criminal Case No. 90313 of 2022, 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 applicant. 11. In view of the ratio laid down in the case of Sanjabij Tari R/CR.MA/8811/2026 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2026 Vs. Kishore S. Borcar and Another [2025 INSC 1158], the applicant is directed to deposit 7.5% of the cheque amount, by way of costs, with the District Legal Services Authority, Ahmedabad, within a period of two weeks from the date of this order. 12. Rule made absolute. Direct service is permitted. (VIMAL K. VYAS, J) AMAR SINGH Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: AMAR SINGH(HC01081), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 17/04/2026 18:24:13