Gujarat High Court
Dilipsinh Arjunsinh Rathod vs State Of Gujarat on 2 December, 2022
Bench: Ilesh J. Vora
R/SCR.A/12687/2022 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 12687 of 2022
==========================================================
DILIPSINH ARJUNSINH RATHOD
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VAIBHAV N SHETH(5337) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
BHAVIK SOMANI for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MRS KRINA CALLA APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
Date : 02/12/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. Mr. Bhavik Somani, learned advocate states that he
has instructions to appear for and on behalf of the original
complainant - respondent no.2 and he will file h is
vakalatnama before the Registry. Registry is directed to
accept his vakalatnama.
2. Rule returnable forthwith. Mrs. Krina Calla, learned
APP and Mr. Somani, learned advocate waives service of
notice of Rule for and on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2
respectively.
3. By this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, read with Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has sought quashing of
the judgment and order dated 14.10.2021 passed in
R/SCR.A/12687/2022 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2022
Criminal Case No. 3259 of 2016 by the learned 5 th
Additional Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Himmatnagar,
Sabarkantha, by which, the petitioner has been convicted
for 6 months SI and also directed to pay Rs.34,400/- as
compensation to respondent no. 2 and in default, to
undergo further SI for 3 months.
4. It appears that the settlement has been arrived at
between the complainant and present petitioner and the
entire cheque amount has been paid to the respondent no.
2, which has been confirmed by the complainant by
detailed affidavit, which has been placed on record. The
complainant do not wish to proceed further and is willing
to compound the offence. Accordingly, the petitioner by
filing this petition, seeks compounding of the offence
under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
5. The petitioner also submits that the Company is
willing to deposit cost as directed by the Supreme Court in
case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H.,
reported in (2010) 5 SCC 633, with the Legal Service
Authority.
6. In case of Kripalsingh Pratapsingh Vs. Salvinder
Kaur Hardisingh Lohana, reported in (2004) 2 GLH
544, the coordinate Bench of this Court after considering
various decisions of the Apex Court, took a view that it
R/SCR.A/12687/2022 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2022
would be permissible for the High Court in exercise of its
inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code, to record
the settlement arrived at between the parties and acquit
the accused of the charges.
7. Thus, taking into account the fact of settlement, the
compounding of the offence is hereby permitted. As a
result, the petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute to
aforesaid extent. the judgment and order dated
14.10.2021 passed in Criminal Case No. 3259 of 2016 by
the learned 5th Additional Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Himmatnagar, Sabarkantha and warrant, if any, issued by
the trial Court, are hereby quashed and set aside. The
petitioner is acquitted of the offences under the provisions
of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner is
directed to deposit 15% of the cheque amount with the
Gujarat State Legal Service Authority within a period of 4
weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Direct service
permitted.
(ILESH J. VORA,J)
P.S. JOSHI
