Hitesh Rameshchandra Sangani vs Farhan Husenkhan Nayab
2022 Latest Caselaw 6952 Guj

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 6952 Guj
Judgement Date : 4 August, 2022

Gujarat High Court

Hitesh Rameshchandra Sangani vs Farhan Husenkhan Nayab on 4 August, 2022

Bench: Samir J. Dave

     R/CR.RA/1256/2019                              ORDER DATED: 04/08/2022




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

       R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 1256 of 2019
                            With
 CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR WITHDRAWAL/DISBURSEMENT
                   OF AMOUNT) NO. 1 of 2021
                              In
       R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 1256 of 2019
==========================================================
                         HITESH RAMESHCHANDRA SANGANI
                                     Versus
                            FARHAN HUSENKHAN NAYAB
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR YOGESHKUMAR A RATANPARA(7260) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR R. C. KODEKAR, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR SHAKEEL A. QURESHI for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMIR J. DAVE

                                Date : 04/08/2022

                                 ORAL ORDER

ORDER IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION

1. By way of present application, the applicant has

requested to quash and set aside the judgment and

order dated 13.06.2019 passed by learned 5 th Additional

Sessions Judge, Junagadh in Criminal Appeal No.36 of

2018 as well as judgment and order dated 16.05.2018

passed by learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge,

Junagadh in Criminal Case No.312 of 2016.

2. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, a

R/CR.RA/1256/2019 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2022

joint submission was made by learned advocates for the

respective parties that dispute between the parties is

settled amicably.

3. Learned advocate for the respondent no.1 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. He has produced an affidavit filed by

respondent no.1, which is taken on record.

4. Learned APP for the respondent 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 learned

advocate for the applicant as well as learned advocate

for the respondent no.1 may not be granted.

5. 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 compromise has been arrived at with the

applicant as per the terms of compromise and therefore,

R/CR.RA/1256/2019 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2022

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 them.

6. Learned advocate for the respondent no.1 has identified

the respondent no.1 as well as his signature in the

affidavit filed by respondent no.1 and has confirmed the

fact about settlement arrived at between the parties.

7. 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-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.

Moreover, the applicant has deposited the amount of

Rs.1,75,000/- (Rupees One Lac Seventy Five Thousand

Only) before the lower court and as per the compromise,

the respondent no.1 is permitted to withdraw such

amount.

8. The Apex Court in the case of Vinay Devanna Nayak Vs

R/CR.RA/1256/2019 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2022

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 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."

9. 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

R/CR.RA/1256/2019 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2022

parties and contents of the affidavit filed by the

respondent no.1, I am of the opinion that the revision

application is required to be allowed and the parties be

permitted to compound the offence.

10. In the result, present revision application is allowed.

The judgment and order dated 13.06.2019 passed by

learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh in

Criminal Appeal No.36 of 2018 as well as judgment and