Gujarat High Court
Indudevi Sidhswaroop Mundra vs State Of Gujarat on 28 January, 2022
Bench: B.N. Karia
R/CR.RA/392/2021 ORDER DATED: 28/01/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 392 of 2021
==========================================================
INDUDEVI SIDHSWAROOP MUNDRA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NR KODEKAR(5020) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ROMIL L KODEKAR(5127) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR.KISHORE PRAJAPATI(6305) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS.MAITHILI MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA
Date : 28/01/2022
ORAL ORDER
Leave to amend the prayer clause.
1. By way of present Criminal Revision Application, applicant
has challenged the order of conviction and sentence dated 11.4.2018
passed by learned 2nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat in
Criminal Case No. 15556 of 2014 convicting the applicant for the
offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act (for short "N.I.Act") as well as order dated 30.4.2021 passed in
Criminal Appeal No.118 of 2018 by learned 17 th Additional
Sessions Judge, Surat wherein, the learned First appellate Court has
been pleased to dismiss the said appeal and confirmed the judgement
and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial
Court.
R/CR.RA/392/2021 ORDER DATED: 28/01/2022
2.. Today, respondent No.2 Chirag Nagarbhai Patel was present
before this Court through video conferencing and he has identified
by learned advocate for the the respondent No.2. He has filed
affidavit dated 3rd August, 2021. Learned advocate for the
respondent No.2 has identified the signature of the respondent No.2
in the affidavit which was executed before the Notary on 3 rd August,
2021. Respondent No.2 has no objection if impugned judgement
and orders passed by the Court below are quashed by this court in
view of settlement arrived at between them.
3. In the Affidavit filed by respondent No.2- Chirag Nagarbhai
Patel, it is stated that:-
4. Thus, I am stating that as the dispute is settled out between me
and the applicant-accused. I do not want to prosecute the matter further
and I request the Hon'ble Court to dispose of the matter by passing an
appropriate order as the Hon'ble Court may think fit.
5. I further request the Hon'ble Court to pass an appropriate order
regarding the amount i.e. Rs.25,625/- deposited at Nazir of District
Court, Surat in Criminal Appeal No. 118 of 2018 as per the order of
respected 17th Additional Sessions Judge, Surat and further of amount
Rs.10,000/- deposited at trial Court as per the order of Hon'ble this
Court to be release in favour of the applicant-accused and I have no
R/CR.RA/392/2021 ORDER DATED: 28/01/2022
objection for the same.
4 Learned advocates for the respective parties also confirm that
the settlement is arrived at between the parties and stated that the
dispute is amicably settled and nothing requires to be adjudicated on
merits by this Court. Therefore, they have requested this Court to
dispose of this Revision Application by quashing and setting aside
the impugned judgement and orders challenged in the present
revision application.
5. Learned APP has objected the arguments advanced by learned
advocates appearing for the respective parties and submitted that
after considering the evidence of the complainant as well
documentary evidence, a clear conviction was rightly held by both
the Courts below and requested to pass necessary order.
6. 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
R/CR.RA/392/2021 ORDER DATED: 28/01/2022
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."
7. Applying the ratio of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court
to the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that the revision
application is required to be allowed and the parties be permitted to
compound the offence.
8. Considering the facts of the case, submissions made by learned
advocates for the applicants and respondent No.1 as well as learned
APP, it appears that the dispute is settled between the parties..
9. In the result, the revision application is allowed. The judgment
and order dated 11.4.2018 passed by learned 2 nd Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Surat in Criminal Case No. 15556 of 2014 as
well as order dated 30.4.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No.118 of
2018 by learned 17th Additional Sessions Judge, Surat stand
quashed and set aside. The applicant-accused is acquitted of the
charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act except
he is not convicted in connection with any other offence.
R/CR.RA/392/2021 ORDER DATED: 28/01/2022
10. Learned advocate for the applicant requests to permit the
applicant to withdraw the amount deposited by the applicant.
Learned advocate for the respondent No.2 has no objection if
permission would be granted by this Court.
11. Applicant is hereby permitted to withdraw the amount
deposited by him before the trial Court.
12. Registry shall communicate this order to the concerned
Sessions Court as well as concerned jail authorities through
Fax/Email.
(B.N. KARIA, J)
BEENA SHAH
