Gujarat High Court
Vaghari Rohitbhai Jenabhai vs State Of Gujarat on 10 February, 2022
Bench: B.N. Karia
R/CR.RA/57/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/02/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 57 of 2022
==========================================================
VAGHARI ROHITBHAI JENABHAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KAMLESH S KOTAI(6150) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ALPESH N GADHAVI(9799) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS MH BHATT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR RAJDEEPSINH R JODDHA(8855) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA
Date : 10/02/2022
ORAL ORDER
Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr.
Rajdeepsinh R. Joddha waives service of notice of rule for and
on behalf of the respondent no.2 and learned APP waives
service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent
no.1.
By way of present application, the applicant has
challenged the judgment and order dated 15.02.2020 passed
in Criminal Case No. 322 of 2018 by learned 2nd Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahesana as well as judgment and
order dated 25.11.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 50 of
2021 by learned Sessions Judge, Mahesana.
Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, a joint
submission was made by learned advocates for the respective
R/CR.RA/57/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/02/2022
parties that dispute between the parties is settled amicably.
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. An
Affidavit filed by the respondent no.2 is taken on record.
Learned APP for the respondent State has requested to
pass necessary order in this matter.
Today, on a request being made by learned advocate for
the respondent no.2, respondent no.2 was permitted to appear
before this court through video conferencing and while
making inquiry, he submits that he is authorized legal officer
of the Mahindra and Mahindra finance Service and in this
regard, the company has given him power of attorney. On the
basis thereof, he has also filed affidavit also. He also submits
before this court that the applicant had paid up his outstanding
loan amount and dispute between the parties is amicably
settled, thus he does not want to proceed further with the
prosecution initiated by them.
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.
R/CR.RA/57/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/02/2022
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.2 has received outstanding loan amount.
Relevant paras of the affidavit filed by the respondent
no.2 are as under:
"4. I respectfully state and submit that the applicant herein had
paid up his outstanding loan amount and disputes between the
parties are amicably settled. Therefore, the respondent no.2
herein does not want to proceed further with the prosecution
initiated by them.
5. I respectfully state and submit that the prosecution initiated
by the respondent no.2 herein is private in nature and as both the
parties have amicably settled the dispute. Therefore, the present
Criminal Revision Application may be allowed by this Hon'ble
Court with the consent of Respondent no.2 herein.
6. I further state and submit that respondent no.2 has no
objection if the judgment dated 15.02.2020 passed in Criminal
Case No. 322 of 2018 by the learned 2nd Additional Judicial
Magistrate, Mahesana and judgment dated 25.11.2021 passed in
Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 2021 by the learned Sessions Judge,
Mahesana may be quashed and set aside by this Hon'ble Court. "
R/CR.RA/57/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/02/2022
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. 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
R/CR.RA/57/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/02/2022
parties be permitted to compound the offence.
In the result, present revision application is allowed. The
judgment and order dated 15.02.2020 passed in Criminal Case
No. 322 of 2018 by learned 2nd Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Mahesana as well as judgment and order dated
25.11.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 2021 by
learned Sessions Judge, Mahesana stand quashed and set aside.
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)
K. S. DARJI
