Gujarat High Court
Versing Govardhansing ... vs State Of Gujarat on 17 August, 2022
Bench: Samir J. Dave
R/CR.RA/161/2021 ORDER DATED: 17/08/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 161 of 2021
==========================================================
VERSING GOVARDHANSING RAJPUROHIT
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MANISH R RAVAL(1250) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HARDIK A DAVE(3764) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. R.C.KODEKAR, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMIR J. DAVE
Date : 17/08/2022
ORAL ORDER
Rule returnable forthwith. Mr.R.C.Kodekar, learned APP
waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent
no.1. Mr. Hardik A.Dave, learned advocate waives service of notice
of rule for and on behalf of the respondent no.2.
By way of present application, the applicant has requested to
quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 29.4.2017 passed
in Criminal Case No. 52694 of 2013 by learned 7 th Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat as well as judgment and order dated
30.1.2021 passed in below Exh.16 in Criminal Appeal No. 121 of
2017 by learned 9th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Surat.
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.
Today, Mr. Hardik Dave, learned advocate for the respondent
R/CR.RA/161/2021 ORDER DATED: 17/08/2022
No.2 submits that full and final settlement has been arrived at
between the parties and respondent no.2 has no objection if the
orders passed by the courts below would be quashed and set aside.
He has produced an affidavit filed by the respondent no.2, which is
taken on record.
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 both the learned advocates for the applicant 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.2, respondent no.2 was permitted to appear before this
court and while making inquiry, he submits that applicant has paid
the entire amount of cheque to him and therefore, 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.2 has identified the
respondent no.2 as well as his signature in the affidavit filed by the
respondent no.2 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-State and considering the facts of the
affidavit filed by the respondent no.2, it appears that the dispute is
settled amicably between the parties and respondent no.2 has
R/CR.RA/161/2021 ORDER DATED: 17/08/2022
received outstanding amount.
Relevant paras of the affidavit filed by the respondent no.2 are
as under:
I say and submit that the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- deposited
by the applicant-accused before the learned trial Court on 26.3.2021
is disbursed in favour of the Deponent i.e. me the original
complainant-respondent No.2 herein. I being the original
complainant-respondent No.2 in the present matter have no objection
if the order passed by the learned trial Court in Criminal Case No.
52694 of 2013 on 29.4.2017 which is confirmed by the learned
Sessions Court vide order dated 30.1.2021 in Criminal Appeal No.
121 of 2017 is quashed and set aside.
"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.
R/CR.RA/161/2021 ORDER DATED: 17/08/2022
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."
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.2, I am of the opinion that the revision application
is required to be allowed and the parties be permitted to compound
the offence.
The amount deposited by the applicant before the trial Court
shall be withdrawn by the respondent no.2 in terms of the
compromise arrived at between the parties
In the result, present revision application is allowed. The
judgment and order dated 29.4.2017 passed in Criminal Case No.
52694 of 2013 by learned 7 th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
R/CR.RA/161/2021 ORDER DATED: 17/08/2022
Surat as well as judgment and order dated 30.1.2021 passed in
below Exh.16 in Criminal Appeal No. 121 of 2017 by learned 9 th
Additional District & Sessions Judge, Surat stand quashed and set
aside. The applicant-accused is acquitted of the charge under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Bail bonds, if any, stands
cancelled. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(SAMIR J. DAVE,J)
BEENA SHAH
