Gujarat High Court
M/S Radhakrushana Traders vs State Of Gujarat on 8 April, 2022
Bench: B.N. Karia
R/CR.RA/41/2022 ORDER DATED: 08/04/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 41 of 2022
==========================================================
M/S RADHAKRUSHANA TRADERS
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HIRENKUMAR M NIYALCHANDANI(9959) for the applicants(s) No. 1,2
MAYANK R CHAVDA(9250) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS. M.H.BHATT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA
Date : 08/04/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule. Ms. M.H.Bhatt, learned APP waives service of notice of
rule for and on behalf of the respondent No.1. Mr. Mayank
R.Chavda, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule for and
on behalf of the respondent No.2
2. By way of present Criminal Revision Application, applicants
have challenged the judgement and order of conviction dated
20.9.2016 passed in Criminal Case No. 2367 of 2015 by learned 3 rd
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot convicting the
applicants for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act (for short "N.I.Act") as well as order
dated 8.12.2017 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 241 of 2016 by
learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot wherein, the learned
R/CR.RA/41/2022 ORDER DATED: 08/04/2022
lower appellate Court has been pleased to dismiss the said appeal
and confirmed the judgement and order of conviction and sentence
passed by the learned trial Court.
3. Earlier on 1.4.2022, respondent No.2 Shri Maheshbhai S.
Vadodariya was present before this Court and he was identified by
learned advocate for the the respondent No.2. He has filed affidavit
dated 17th August, 2021. Learned advocate for the respondent No.2
has identified the signature of the respondent No.2 in the affidavit
which was executed before the Notary on 17 th August, 2021,
wherein, he has admitted that settlement is arrived at between the
parties and he has received an amount of Rs.6.00 Lacs from the
present applicants. Therefore, Respondent No.2 has no objection if
impugned judgement and orders passed by the Court below are
quashed by this court in view of settlement arrived at between them.
4. The relevant paragraphs in the Affidavit filed by respondent
No.2- Shri Maheshbhai S.Vadodariya, are as under :-
2. I say and submit that, there are no ill-will or grievance
amongst us. Thus, compromise/settlement has been arrived
between us. Further submitted that I have received all the
pending money from the applicant and now there is no
outstanding from the applicant, and now settlement has been
arrived between us.
3. I say and submit in the present application, the present
R/CR.RA/41/2022 ORDER DATED: 08/04/2022
applicants herein have prayed for quashing and set aside the
impugned judgement and order dated 8.12.2017 passed in
Criminal Appeal No. 241 of 2016 by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Rajkot as also the judgement and order dated
20.9.2016 passed in Criminal Case No. 2367 of 2015 by the
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot. I do not
have any objection, if this Hon'ble court may be pleased to
grant relief as prayed in the application. I am filing the present
affidavit on my own free will and consent without any threat
or coercion.
5. Learned advocates for the respective parties also confirm that
the settlement is arrived at between the parties and nothing requires
to be adjudicated on merits by this Court. Therefore, they have
requested this Court to dispose of this Revision Application by
quashing and setting aside the impugned judgements and orders
challenged in the present revision application.
6. Learned APP has objected the arguments advanced by learned
advocates appearing for the respective parties and submitted that
after considering the evidence of the complainant as well
documentary evidence, a clear conviction was rightly held by both
the Courts below and requested to pass necessary order.
7. The Apex Court in the case of Vinay Devanna Nayak V/s
Ryot Seva Sahakari Bank Ltd. reported in AIR 2008 SC 716 has
observed as under in paras 17 and 18 of the judgment :
"17. As observed by this Court in Electronic Trade & Technology
R/CR.RA/41/2022 ORDER DATED: 08/04/2022
Development Corporation Ltd. V. Indian Technologists and Engineers,
(1996) 2 SCC 739, the object of bringing Section 138 in the statute book
is to inculcate faith in the efficacy of banking operation and credibility
in transacting business on negotiable instruments. The provision is
intended to prevent dishonesty on the party of the drawer of negotiable
instruments in issuing cheques without sufficient funds or with a view to
inducing the payee or holder in due course to act upon it. It thus seeks to
promote the efficacy of banking operations and ensures credibility in
transacting business through cheques. In such matters,therefore,
normally compounding of offences should not be denied. Presumably,
Parliament also realized this aspect and inserted Section 147 by the
Negotiable Instruments (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions)
Act, 2002 (Act 55 of 2002)".
18.Taking into consideration even the said provision (Section 147) and
the primary object underlying Section 138, in our judgment, there is no
reason to refuse compromise between the parties. We therefore dispose
of the appeal on the basis of the settlement arrived at between the
appellant and the respondent."
8. Applying the ratio of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court
to the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that the revision
application is required to be allowed and the parties be permitted to
compound the offence.
9. Considering the facts of the case, submissions made by learned
advocates for the applicants and respondent No.2 as well as learned
APP, it appears that the dispute is settled between the parties.
10. In the result, the revision application is allowed. The judgment
and order dated 20.9.2016 passed in Criminal Case No. 2367 of
2015 by learned 3rd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot as
well as judgement and order dated 8.12.2017 passed in Criminal
R/CR.RA/41/2022 ORDER DATED: 08/04/2022
Appeal No. 241 of 2016 by learned 7 th Additional Sessions Judge,
Rajkot stand quashed and set aside. The applicants-accused are
acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act except they are not convicted in connection with
any other offence. Bail bond, if any, stands cancelled.
11. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(B.N. KARIA, J)
BEENA SHAH
