Gujarat High Court
Ishakbhai Kesarbhai Sheta vs Shree Ram Transport Finance ... on 19 April, 2022
Bench: B.N. Karia
R/CR.RA/653/2017 ORDER DATED: 19/04/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 653 of 2017
==========================================================
ISHAKBHAI KESARBHAI SHETA
Versus
SHREE RAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LTD THROUGH POA
HOLDER UTTPALBHAI JAYANTILAL THAKKAR & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VIRAL J. VYAS FOR MR CHINTAN S POPAT(5004) for the Applicant(s)
No. 1
MS NARMATA MULCHANDANI FOR MR MANISH J PATEL(2131) for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
MS MH BHATT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA
Date : 19/04/2022
ORAL ORDER
By way of present application, the applicant has
challenged the judgment and order dated 29.05.2017 passed
in Criminal Appeal No. 42 of 2016 by learned 2nd Additional
District Judge, Junagadh as well as judgment and order dated
10.03.2016 passed in Criminal Case No. 44 of 2012 by
learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate (Special Negotiable Court), Junagadh and
acquit him from the charges leveled against him.
Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, a joint
submission was made by learned advocates for the respective
parties that dispute between the parties is settled amicably.
R/CR.RA/653/2017 ORDER DATED: 19/04/2022
Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the
dispute has been settled between the parties and applicant may
be permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs. 2,50,000/-
deposited by the applicant at the time of admitting the revision
application.
Learned advocate for the respondent no.1 submits that
the dispute has been settled between the parties and earlier,
the amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- was deposited by the applicant
before the trial court and thus, the respondent no.1 has no
objection if the applicant may be permitted to withdraw such
deposited amount. He further submits that full and final
settlement has been arrived at between the parties and
respondent no.1 has no objection if the orders passed by the
courts below would be quashed and set aside.
Learned APP for the respondent No.2- State has submitted
that after recording evidence, learned lower courts have passed
the order of conviction against the present applicant and
therefore, request made by both the learned advocates for the
applicants as well as learned advocate for the respondent no.2
may not be granted.
Today, on a request being made by learned advocate for
the respondent no.1, respondent no.1 was permitted to appear
before this court and while making inquiry, he submits that
applicant has paid the entire amount to him and therefore,
R/CR.RA/653/2017 ORDER DATED: 19/04/2022
now there is no dispute exist and now , no ill will or grievance
among the parties thus he does not want to proceed further
with the prosecution initiated by him.
Learned advocate for the respondent no.1 has identified
the respondent no.1 as well as his signature in the affidavit
filed by the respondent no.1 and has confirmed the fact about
settlement arrived at between the parties.
Having considered the facts of the case and submissions
made by learned advocates for the respective parties as well as
learned APP for the respondent No.2-State and considering the
facts of the affidavit filed by the respondent no.1, it appears
that the dispute is settled amicably between the parties and
respondent no.1 has received outstanding loan amount.
Relevant paras of the affidavit filed by the respondent
no.1 are as under:
"1. I am original complainant(Respondent no.1herein) of the
complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act before 3" Additional Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial
Magistrate (Special Negotiable Court), Junagadh for the
dishonored of the cheque of Rs.5,31,330/under section 138 of
N.LAct, against petitioner herein. In which at the conclusion of
the trial the petitioner herein has been convicted by order dated
10.03.2016 under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by
the Order passed by 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge and Chief
Judicial Magistrate (Special Negotiable Court), Junagadh, the
applicant/accused has filed Criminal Appeal before 2 nd Additional
R/CR.RA/653/2017 ORDER DATED: 19/04/2022
Sessions Judge Junagadh. Wherein order dated 10.03.2016 has
been confirmed by order dated 29.05.2017 passed tn Criminal
Appeal No. 42 of 2016.
3. Therefore, Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with above
stated orders, present revision application before this Hon-ble
court has been preferred and same has been registered as
Criminal Appeal no. 653 of 2017 and also Same was admitted by
this Hon'ble court by order dated 20.07.2017 and same 1s
pending for further consideration.
4. It is submits that, Pending present revision application dispute
between parties has resolved and settled. Toward settlement, full
and final payment amount has been deposited paid. As on today
there is no any due/outstanding from the Applicant/Petitioner
herein. Therefore 1f order challenge under present revision
application has been quashed and set aside, then I have no any
objection And I have also no any objection if amount which was
deposited while admiring revision application return to the
petitioner applicant."
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
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
R/CR.RA/653/2017 ORDER DATED: 19/04/2022
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."
Applying the ratio of the aforesaid decision of the Apex
Court to the facts of the present case as well as considering the
settlement arrived at between the parties, I am of the opinion
that the revision application is required to be allowed and the
parties be permitted to compound the offence.
In the result, present revision application is allowed. The
judgment and order dated 29.05.2017 passed in Criminal
Appeal No. 42 of 2016 by learned 2nd Additional District Judge,
Junagadh as well as judgment and order dated 10.03.2016
passed in Criminal Case No. 44 of 2012 by learned 3rd
Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate (Special Negotiable Court), Junagadh stand quashed
and set aside. The applicant-accused is acquitted of the charge
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Bail
bond, if any, stands cancelled.
R/CR.RA/653/2017 ORDER DATED: 19/04/2022
Applicant is permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs.
2,50,000/- deposited by him before the learned trial court and
the learned trial court shall release such amount after due
verification in favour of the applicant.
Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(B.N. KARIA, J)
K. S. DARJI
