Gujarat High Court
Mahida Dharmendrabhai Dilipbhai vs State Of Gujarat on 8 December, 2021
Bench: Ilesh J. Vora
R/CR.MA/21547/2021 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 21547 of 2021
==========================================================
MAHIDA DHARMENDRABHAI DILIPBHAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
A B PATEL(7467) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
Date : 08/12/2021
ORAL ORDER
1. Mr. H.N. Sevak, learned advocate states that he has
instructions to appear for the respondent no.2-original
complainant and seeks permission to file Vakalatnama
with the Registry. Permission is granted. Registry is
directed to accept the same.
2. Rule returnable forthwith. Ms. Shruti Pathak, learned
APP and Mr. H.N. Sevak, learned advocate waive service of
notice of Rule for and on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2
respectively.
3. By this application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
the applicant has sought quashing of the judgment and
order dated 30.09.2021 passed by learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Umreth in Criminal Case No.736 of
2018 by which the applicant has been convicted for 10
months SI and also directed to pay Rs.49,000/- to the
R/CR.MA/21547/2021 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2021
complainant as a compensation.
4. It appears that the settlement has been arrived at
between the complainant and the present applicant and
entire cheque amount has been paid to the respondent
no.2, which has been confirmed by the complainant by
detailed affidavit, which has been placed on record. The
complainant do not wish to proceed further and is willing
to compound the offence. Accordingly, the applicant by
filing this application, seeks compounding of the offence
under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
5. The applicant also submits that the applicant is
willing to deposit cost as directed by the Supreme Court in
case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H.,
reported in (2010) 5 SCC 633, with the Legal Service
Authority.
6. In case of Kripalsingh Pratapsingh Vs. Salvinder
Kaur Hardisingh Lohana, reported in (2004) 2 GLH
544, the coordinate Bench of this Court after considering
various decisions of the Apex Court, took a view that it
would be permissible for the High Court in exercise of its
inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code, to record
the settlement arrived at between the parties and acquit
the accused of the charges.
7. Thus, taking into account the fact of settlement, the
compounding of the offence is hereby permitted. As a
result, the application is hereby allowed. Rule is made
absolute to the aforesaid extent. The judgment and order
R/CR.MA/21547/2021 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2021
passed by the Courts below i.e. order dated 30.09.2021
and warrant issued by the trial Court, are hereby quashed
and set aside. The applicant is acquitted of the offences
under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The applicant is directed to deposit an amount of
Rs.7,500/- with the Gujarat State Legal Service Authority
within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of this
order. Direct service is permitted.
(ILESH J. VORA,J)
TAUSIF SAIYED
