Gujarat High Court
Satishkumar Ramanbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 6 July, 2022
Bench: Samir J. Dave
R/CR.RA/770/2021 ORDER DATED: 06/07/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 770 of 2021
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (REGULAR BAIL) NO. 1 of 2021
In R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 770 of 2021
==========================================================
SATISHKUMAR RAMANBHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. JAVED S QURESHI(6999) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR.WASIM M PATHAN(6802) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS MH BHATT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMIR J. DAVE
Date : 06/07/2022
ORAL ORDER
OF 2021:
Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Wasim
M. Pathan 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-State.
By way of present application, the applicant has
requested to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated
4th October 2021 passed by learned Sessions Judge,
Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar in Criminal Appeal No. 49 of
2021 as well as judgment and order dated 10th June 2021
passed by learned 4th Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Himmatnagar in Criminal Case No. 1791 of 2018.
Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, a joint
R/CR.RA/770/2021 ORDER DATED: 06/07/2022
submission was made by learned advocates for the respective
parties that dispute between the parties is settled amicably.
Today, learned advocate for the respondent 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.
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.
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 in Criminal Misc.
Application No.1 of 2021 in Criminal Revision Application No.
770 of 2021, it appears that the dispute is settled amicably
between the parties.
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
R/CR.RA/770/2021 ORDER DATED: 06/07/2022
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
parties be permitted to compound the offence.
In the result, present revision application is allowed. The
judgment and order dated 4th October 2021 passed by learned
Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar in Criminal
Appeal No. 49 of 2021 as well as judgment and order dated
10th June 2021 passed by learned 4th Additional Judicial
R/CR.RA/770/2021 ORDER DATED: 06/07/2022
Magistrate First Class, Himmatnagar in Criminal Case No.
1791 of 2018. 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.
ORAL ORDER IN CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 1 OF
2021 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 770 OF
2021:
In view of the order passed by this court in Criminal
Revision Application No. 770 of 2021, present application does
not survive and accordingly, stands disposed of.
(SAMIR J. DAVE,J)
K. S. DARJI
