Gujarat High Court

Rajnikant Meghjibhai Solanki vs Proprietor Of Joy Corporation ... on 27 April, 2022

Bench: B.N. Karia

      R/CR.RA/148/2021                           ORDER DATED: 27/04/2022




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

        R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 148 of 2021
                             With
 CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR WITHDRAWAL/DISBURSEMENT
                   OF AMOUNT) NO. 1 of 2022
       In R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 148 of 2021
==========================================================
                 RAJNIKANT MEGHJIBHAI SOLANKI
                            Versus
     PROPRIETOR OF JOY CORPORATION ANIL VASANTBHAI SOLANKI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MANISH J PATEL(2131) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR.HARDIK SONI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
RAHUL S SHAH(9701) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA

                            Date : 27/04/2022

                             ORAL ORDER

Learned advocate for the respondent No.1 has filed fresh

affidavit which is taken on record.

1. By way of present Criminal Revision Application, applicant

has challenged the order of impugned judgement and order dated

23.1.2019 passed in Criminal Case No. 63414 of 2014 by learned

9th Additional Senior Civil Judge & Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Surat convicting the applicant for the offence

punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for

short "N.I.Act") as well as order dated 8.2.2021 passed in Criminal

Appeal No.68 of 2019 with Criminal Revision Application No.58

of 2019 by learned 14th Additional Sessions Judge District &

R/CR.RA/148/2021 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2022

Sessions Court, Surat wherein, the learned First appellate Court has

been pleased to partly allowed the said appeal and confirmed the

judgement and order of conviction and sentence passed by the

learned trial Court.

2. Today, respondent No.1 - Proprietor of Joy Corporation Anil

Vasantbhai Solanki was present before this Court and he was

identified by learned advocate for the the respondent No.1. He has

filed affidavit on 27th April, 2022. Learned advocate for the

respondent No.1 has identified the signature of the respondent No.1

in the affidavit which was executed before the Notary on 27 th April,

2022. Respondent No.1 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.

3. In the Affidavit filed by respondent No.1- Proprietor of Joy

Corporation Anil Vasantbhai Solanki , it is stated that:-

4. It is stated that the petitioner has preferred this Criminal

Revision Application pray for quashing and setting aside the

orders passed by learned JMFC, Surat in Criminal Case

No.63414 of 2014 dated 23.1.2019 and Criminal Appeal

No.68 of 2019 dated 8.2.2021 passed by learned District &

R/CR.RA/148/2021 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2022

Sessions Court, Surat.

5. It is further submitted that, this Hon'ble Court vide order

dated 23.2.2021 granted interim relief to the petitioner

(original accused) which was extended also. By an order dated

22.10.2021, the petitioner (original accused) was directed to

deposit an amount of Rs.50,000/-, which he has deposited.

After that, this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 19.1.2021

directed the petitioner to deposit further amount of

Rs.4,00,000/- that amount was deposited on dated 19.1.2022 in

trial Court, Surat by respondent.

6. It's humbly submitted that the case is settled between

both the party and entire amount is deposited by the present

applicant i.e. original accused. Therefore, I be allowed to

withdraw the amount deposited before the learned subordinate

court by the original accused. The original accused in total has

deposited the amount of Rs.50,000/- before the Registry of

High Court and Rs.4,00,000/- deposited before the learned

trial Court which be allowed to be withdrawn by me i.e. the

original complainant or it be transferred to me i.e. the original

complainant.

      R/CR.RA/148/2021                                   ORDER DATED: 27/04/2022



4      Learned advocates for the respective parties also confirm that

the settlement is arrived at between the parties and stated that the

dispute is amicably settled 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 judgement and orders challenged in the present

revision application.

5. 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.

6. 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 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

R/CR.RA/148/2021 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2022

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."

7. 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.

8. Considering the facts of the case, submissions made by learned

advocates for the applicants and respondent No.1 as well as learned

APP, it appears that the dispute is settled between the parties..

9. In the result, the revision application is allowed. The judgment

and order dated 23.1.2019 passed in Criminal Case No. 63414 of

2014 by learned 9th Additional Senior Civil Judge & Additional

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat as well as order dated 8.2.2021

passed in Criminal Appeal No.68 of 2019 with Criminal Revision