Kiritbhai Shanabhai Rohit vs Champaben Mangalbhai Patel
2022 Latest Caselaw 7118 Guj

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 7118 Guj
Judgement Date : 10 August, 2022

Gujarat High Court

Kiritbhai Shanabhai Rohit vs Champaben Mangalbhai Patel on 10 August, 2022

Bench: Samir J. Dave

     R/CR.RA/820/2022                                        ORDER DATED: 10/08/2022




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

          R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 820 of 2022
==========================================================
                          KIRITBHAI SHANABHAI ROHIT
                                     Versus
                        CHAMPABEN MANGALBHAI PATEL
==========================================================
Appearance:
KRUTARTH K DESAI(9662) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR R. C. KODEKAR, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. HITENDRA RAJPUT, ADVOCATE for respondent No.1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMIR J. DAVE

                                 Date : 10/08/2022
                                  ORAL ORDER

1. Learned Advocate Mr. Hitendra Rajput seeks permission

to file his appearance on behalf of respondent no.1. The

permission, as prayed for, is granted.

2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for

and on behalf of Respondent-State and learned

Advocate Mr.Hitendra Rajput waives service of notice for

and on behalf of Respondent No.1.

3. By way of present application, the applicant has

requested to quash and set aside the judgment and

order dated 05.03.2022 passed by learned 2 nd

Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Criminal

R/CR.RA/820/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/08/2022

Appeal No.171 of 2019 as well as judgment and order

dated 03.06.2019 passed by learned 11 th Additional

Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Surat in Criminal Case No.41540 of 2016.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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

R/CR.RA/820/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/08/2022

for the respondent no.1 may not be granted.

7. 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, she

submits that compromise has been arrived at with the

applicant as per the terms of compromise and therefore,

now there is no dispute exist and now, no ill will or

grievance among the parties thus, she does not want to

proceed further with the prosecution initiated by them.

8. 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.

9. 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 amicably settled between the parties and

R/CR.RA/820/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/08/2022

respondent no.1 has received the settlement amount.

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

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."

R/CR.RA/820/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/08/2022

11. 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 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.

12. In the result, both revision applications are allowed. The

judgment and order dated 05.03.2022 passed by

learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara in

Criminal Appeal No.171 of 2019 as well as judgment