Oral Order

1. Heard Mr.Dharmik Joshi for the petitioners. Learned advocate Mr.Monark Pandya has instructions to appear on behalf of respondent nos.2.1 to 2.4-original complainant and he will be filing his Vakalatnama. The registry shall accept the Vakalatnama of Mr.Pandya.

2. Rule. Learned APP and learned advocate for respondent nos.2.1 to 2.4 waive service of Rule on behalf of the respective respondents.

3. At the outset, Mr.Monark Pandya learned advocate for the complainant would submit a copy of the affidavit dated 6.4.2026 filed by respondent no.2.1 on behalf of respondent no.2-original complainant firm, which is taken on record in both the cases. As per the said affidavit, the complainant has declared before this Court that respondent no.2 has amicably settled the dispute with the petitioners-accused. Respondent no.2.1-Ishwarbhai Nanjibhai Bhavani is present before the Court through video conferencing and he is identified by learned advocate Mr.Monark Pandya.

4. Per contra, Mr.Dharmik Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioners-accused would state that, as per the terms of settlement, the petitioners-accused have paid a total sum of Rs.21,00,000/- to the complainant. It is submitted that Rs.15,60,000/- is paid to the original complainant and balance amount of Rs.5,40,000/- is already deposited with the Sessions Court and the accused have no objection if such amount will be permitted to be withdrawn by the original complainant.

5. Both the learned advocates have jointly requested this Court to accept the aforesaid settlement and may quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial Court and other consequential proceedings qua the present petitioners.

6. Learned APP would submit that appropriate order may be passed in the interest of justice.

7. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and taking note of the fact that the complaint is arising out of a commercial transaction between the complainant and the accused, whereby by the cheques, which were handed over to the complainant got dishonoured, for which Criminal Case No.391 of 2020 came to be filed by the original complainant. The trial Court has found the accused guilty of such offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Against this order, the petitioners-accused have preferred Criminal Appeal Nos.105 and 106 of 2025 before learned Sessions Judge, Kutch-Bhuj, which is pending. Now, there is an amicable settlement arrived between the parties.

Considering the aforesaid development, there would be no harm in accepting the request of the parties.

8. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned judgment and order dated 24.4.2025 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhuj, in Criminal Case No.391 of 2020 is hereby quashed and set aside along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the present petitioners. Since the petitioners-accused are on bail, as per order dated 23.5.2025 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kutch-Bhuj, in Criminal Appeal Nos.105 and 106 of 2025, bail bond of the petitioners - accused stands discharged. Since the petitioners- accused have already paid a sum of Rs.15,60,000/- to original complainant and balance amount of Rs.5,40,000/- is already deposited/lying with the Sessions Court/appellate Court, Kutch- Bhuj, it is hereby observed that the original complainant is permitted to withdraw the aforesaid deposited amount i.e. Rs.5,40,000/- from the appellate Court concerned. As and when such request will be made by the complainant, the same shall be accepted by the appellate Court and, upon proper verification, the amount shall be transmitted in the account of the complainant through RTGS/NEFT.

9. Accordingly, both these Special Criminal Applications are allowed. Rule is made absolute to aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.