Gujarat High Court
Nilam Engineering Work Thro ... vs Samit Natvarla Parikh on 30 September, 2021
Bench: Umesh A. Trivedi
R/CR.RA/680/2021 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 680 of 2021
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (REGULAR BAIL) NO. 1 of
2021
In
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 680 of 2021
==========================================
NILAM ENGINEERING WORK THRO PROPRIETOR GAURAV
JAYESHBHAI PARMAR
Versus
SAMIT NATVARLA PARIKH
==========================================
Appearance:
JAIVIK UDAY BHATT(7319) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR UDAY H BHATT(6457) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS. JIRGA JHAVERI, APP (2) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI
Date : 30/09/2021
ORAL ORDER
Mr. Kalrav Patel, learned advocate has instruction to appear
for and on behalf of respondent No.1 i.e. original complainant. He
is is process of filing his appearance. Registry is directed to accept
the Vakalatnama of Mr. Kalrav Patel for and on behalf of
respondent No.1-original complainant.
[1.0.] RULE. Learned advocate Mr. Kalrav Patel waives
service of notice of rule for and on behalf of respondent No.1 -
original complainant as well as learned APP waives service of
notice of rule for and on behalf of respondent No.2- State of
Gujarat.
R/CR.RA/680/2021 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2021
[2.0.] Mr. Kalrav Patel, learned advocate for respondent
No.1 - original complainant has submitted that matter is settled
between the parties and he places on record an affidavit affirmed
by respondent No.1 - original complainant - Sumit Natvarlal
Parikh, who is present before the Court and duly identified by Mr.
Kalrav Patel, learned advocate representing him. Along with the
affidavit, the xerox copy of settlement agreement is also produced,
which is ordered to be taken on record.
[3.0.] This revision application is directed against the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.02.2017
passed by the learned 04th Additional Senior Civil Judge and
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara, in Criminal Case
No.16022 of 2015 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.7,80,000/-, and in default of
payment of compensation in two months, he is ordered to undergo
further 03 months of simple imprisonment. The said order has
been confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Vadodara, vide
judgment and order dated 09.09.2021 rendered in Criminal Appeal
No.85 of 2017. Hence, both these orders are under challenge
before this Court.
[4.0.] Since the matter is settled between the parties and in
view of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 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
R/CR.RA/680/2021 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2021
No.1-original complainant has agreed to accept the amount as
stated in it. It is further stated therein that the respondent No.1-
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.
In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.02.2017
passed by the learned 04th Additional Senior Civil Judge and
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara in Criminal Case
No.16022 of 2015 as also the judgment and order dated
09.09.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Vadodara
rendered in Criminal Appeal No.85 of 2017, are hereby quashed
and set aside.
[5.0.] 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.
[6.0.] 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. However, in view of para-17 of the
said judgment, a discretion is granted to the Competent Court to
reduce the cost amount or waive the same on specific facts and
circumstances of a case.
[7.0.] Learned advocate for the applicant submits that since
as against the cheque amount of Rs.7,80,000/-, the original
R/CR.RA/680/2021 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2021
complainant has agreed to settle the dispute as full and final
settlement thereof for Rs.2,50,000/- , it appears that the applicant
- accused is unable to fulfill his basic obligation. In view thereof,
the applicant - accused is required to be saddled with the cost of
Rs.10,000/- which is to be deposited to the Gujarat State Legal
Services Authority within a period of three weeks from today.
[8.0.] The application stands disposed of as allowed. Rule is
made absolute to the above extent. Direct service is permitted.
In view of disposal of this application, connected
application/s stand disposed of.
(UMESH A. TRIVEDI, J)
Lalji Desai
