Gujarat High Court
Bhaven Dhansukhbhai Rana vs State Of Gujarat on 10 February, 2022
Bench: B.N. Karia
R/CR.RA/929/2021 ORDER DATED: 10/02/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 929 of 2021
==========================================================
BHAVEN DHANSUKHBHAI RANA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
ANURAG V AGRAWAL(9295) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS MONALI BHATT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR JAY A MEHTA(9088) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA
Date : 10/02/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for
and on behalf of respondent-State and learned advocate Mr.
Jay A. Mehta, waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf
of respondent No.2.
2. By way of present application, applicant has prayed to
quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated
06.12.2021 delivered by learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge,
Bharuch below Exh.23 in Criminal Appeal No.03 of 2019.
3. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and
learned APP for the respondent-State.
4. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that after
lodging impugned complaint, compromise was taken place
between the parties amicably and dispute has now been
R/CR.RA/929/2021 ORDER DATED: 10/02/2022
resolved. It is further submitted that wife of the applicant has
already paid the amount due from the accused to the
complainant and the complainant has also entered into
settlement agreement before Notary on 10.12.2021 which is
on record of this case. It is further submitted that the amount
already paid to the complainant, as mentioned in the
settlement, i.e. cheque amount which is acknowledged
appears to have been received by the complainant. Hence, he
has requested to quash and set aside the impugned
complaint.
5. Looking to the nature of the offence, learned APP for
the respondent-State has requested not to quash the
impugned FIR.
6. Today, the respondent no.2 was appeared through video
conferencing and learned advocate for the respondent no.2
has identified the respondent no.2 namely Mukeshkumar
Bansilal Khadkiwala as well as his signature in his affidavit.
Respondent no.2 has stated before this Court that
compromise has been arrived at amicably with the applicant
and the applicant has paid him Rs.1,10,000/- by entering into
compromise and in this connection, he has filed his affidavit
R/CR.RA/929/2021 ORDER DATED: 10/02/2022
declaring the compromise arrived at between the parties and
he has no objection if the impugned judgment and order is
quashed by the Court.
7. Relevant paragraphs of the affidavit filed by the
respondent no.2 are as under:
"3. It is respectfully submitted that, subsequent to an
order dated 06.12.2021 passed by 5th Additional
Sessions Judge, Bharuch in Criminal Appeal No.03
of 2019, I and the above named revisionist amicably
settled the dispute between us. Notably, the wife of
Revisionist herein paid me Rs.88,000/- (Eighty-Eight
Thousand Rupees Only/-) on 10.12.2021. Besides
that, the revisionist at the time of filing of Criminal
Appeal deposited Rs.22,000/- (Twenty-Two
Thousand Rupees Only/-) before appellate court
which was also disbursed to me by court.
Accordingly, revisionist herein had paid to me total
Rs.1,10,000/- (One Lakh Ten Thousand Rupees
Only/-) and have entered into compromise.
4. I hereby further declare that the disputes and
differences with revitionist is amicably resolved and
we have mutually decided to put an end to legal
proceedings; henceforth, I have no objection if the
impugned order dated 06.12.2021 passed by 5 th
Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch in Criminal
Appeal No.03 of 2019 against the revisionist is
quashed and set aside.
R/CR.RA/929/2021 ORDER DATED: 10/02/2022
5. At the cost of repetition, I further humbly submit
that, I do not wish to pursue any legal proceedings
against above-named revisionist as there remain no
disputes and differences with the revisionist in the
light of the amicable settlement. Accordingly, I have
no objection if the honourable court is pleased to
quash and set aside the order of 5 th Additional
Sessions Judge, Bharuch in Criminal Appeal No.03
of 2019 as well as the judgment of conviction
delivered by 4th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bharuch in Criminal Case No.6362 of 2016. I am
also ready and willing to make the statement before
this hounourable court."
8. 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
R/CR.RA/929/2021 ORDER DATED: 10/02/2022
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 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.
10. In the result, present revision application is allowed. The
impugned judgment and order dated 06.12.2021 passed by
learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch below Exh.23
R/CR.RA/929/2021 ORDER DATED: 10/02/2022
in Criminal Appeal No.03 of 2019 as well as the judgment of
conviction passed by 4th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bharuch in Criminal Case No.6362 of 2016 stand quashed
and set aside qua present applicant. The applicant-accused is
acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act.
Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(B.N. KARIA, J)
rakesh/
