Mustakbhai Ibrahimbhai Bagwala vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 15154 Guj

     R/CR.RA/676/2021                               ORDER DATED: 27/09/2021



           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

       R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 676 of 2021
========================================================
              MUSTAKBHAI IBRAHIMBHAI BAGWALA
                               Versus
                        STATE OF GUJARAT
========================================================
Appearance:
MR HARDIK H DAVE(6295) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS. JIRGA JHAVERI, APP (2) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
========================================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI

                            Date : 27/09/2021

                              ORAL ORDER

Mr. Gaurav Goyal, learned advocate has instruction to appear for and on behalf of respondent No.2 - Sunilkumar Vitthaldas Parikh i.e. original complainant. He seeks permission to file his appearance with the Registry. Registry is directed to accept the Vakalatnama of Mr. Gaurav Goyal for and on behalf of respondent No.2-original complainant, if it is filed during the course of the day.

[1.0.] RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of respondent No.1- State of Gujarat as well as learned advocate Mr. Gaurav Goyal waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of respondent No.2-original complainant.

[2.0.] Mr. Gaurav Goyal, learned advocate for the original complainant has submitted that matter is settled between the parties and he has tendered settlement affidavit on behalf of respondent No.2, who is present before this Court and duly identified by him. The copy of settlement affidavit is taken on record.

      R/CR.RA/676/2021                              ORDER DATED: 27/09/2021



[3.0.]         This revision application is directed against the judgment

of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.11.2020 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Halol, in Criminal Case No.1301 of 2013 convicting the applicant-accused for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and directed him to undergo simple imprisonment of 1 year as also imposed a compensation of Rs.2,40,000/-, and in default of payment of compensation, he is ordered to undergo further 02 months of simple imprisonment. The said order has been confirmed in appeal vide Criminal Appeal No.24 of 2020 by the learned 2 nd Additional Sessions Judge, Halol, Panchmahal, by judgment and order dated 21.08.2021.

[4.0.] Since the matter is settled between the parties and in view of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, since the offence is made compoundable, now the settlement arrived at between the parties is required to be encouraged. In view of the settlement agreement executed as also the affidavit affirmed by the original complainant as per the terms recorded therein, the respondent No.2 - original complainant has agreed to accept the amount as stated in it. It is further stated therein that the respondent No.2-original complainant is not interested in sending the applicant in jail and he has no objection, if the judgment of conviction and order of sentence imposed upon the applicant is quashed and set aside.

[5.0.] Hence, this application is allowed. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.11.2020 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Halol, in Criminal Case No.1301 of 2013 as also the judgment and order dated 21.08.2021 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Halol, Panchmahal, in Criminal

R/CR.RA/676/2021 ORDER DATED: 27/09/2021

Appeal No.24 of 2020 are hereby quashed and set aside.

[6.0.] In view of sub- Section (8) of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant is hereby acquitted from all the charges levelled against him.

[7.0.] Though compounding under Section 147 of the Act is made permissible, in view of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu vs Sayed Babalal reported in AIR 2010 SC 1907, the accused is required to pay cost, to be deposited with Gujarat State Legal Services Authority, at the rate of 15% of cheque amount.

[8.0.] In view thereof, the applicant - accused is directed to pay the cost of Rs.36,000/- to the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority as aforesaid within a period of three weeks from today and he shall file an undertaking to that effect before the Registry of this Court. If the applicant fails to deposit the said amount within the time prescribed, as aforesaid, he shall be taken into custody by issuing non-bailable warrant by the learned trial Court and the present order shall stand automatically recalled and he would serve the sentence.

[9.0.] Registry is hereby directed to issue final writ of this revision application after ascertaining that the aforesaid cost amount is deposited by the applicant. Rule is made absolute to the above extent. Direct service is permitted.

(UMESH A. TRIVEDI, J) Lalji Desai