Gujarat High Court
Harvindersing (Sweetubhai) ... vs State Of Gujarat on 7 July, 2022
Bench: Samir J. Dave
R/CR.RA/14/2022 ORDER DATED: 07/07/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 14 of 2022
==========================================================
HARVINDERSING (SWEETUBHAI) SURJITSINGH TUTEJA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SAVANKUMAR M SONI(11948) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR TAPASWI P RAVAL(10534) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR RC KODEKAR, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR MEET A SONI(11614) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMIR J. DAVE
Date : 07/07/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule. Mr.R.C. Kodekar, learned APP waives service of
notice of rule for and on behalf of respondent no.1-State and
Mr.Meet A. Soni, learned advocate waives service of notice of
Rule for and on behalf of respondent no.2.
2. By way of present application, the applicant has prayed
to quash and set aside the order dated 26.07.2019 passed by
the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court
No.32, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No.3200146 of 2013 as
well as the order dated 10.12.2021 passed by the learned City
Civil and Sessions Court, Court No.4, Ahmedabad in Criminal
Appeal No.628 of 2019.
R/CR.RA/14/2022 ORDER DATED: 07/07/2022
3. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and
learned APP for the respondent-State.
4. On the joint submissions made made by learned
advocates for the respective parties, the dispute is amicably
settled between the parties. It is further requested that this
matter may be disposed of by allowing this Revision
Application in quashing and setting aside the impinged
judgments and orders recorded by the Courts-below. Learned
advocate for the respondent no.2 has submitted that affidavit
of the original complainant is filed by the original
complainant, wherein the respondent no.2 has stated that the
dispute is settled between them and he has no objection if the
order dated 26.07.2019 passed by the learned Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.32, Ahmedabad in Criminal
Case No.3200146 of 2013 as well as the order dated
10.12.2021 passed by the learned City Civil and Sessions
Court, Court No.4, Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No.628 of
2019 would be quashed and set aside by this Court. Learned
advocate for the respondent no.2 identified the respondent
no.2 as well as his signature in the affidavit filed by the
respondent no.2-original complainant.
R/CR.RA/14/2022 ORDER DATED: 07/07/2022
5. 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."
R/CR.RA/14/2022 ORDER DATED: 07/07/2022
6. 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.
7. In the result, present Revision Application is allowed.
The order dated 26.07.2019 passed by the learned Additional
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.32, Ahmedabad in
Criminal Case No.3200146 of 2013 as well as the order dated
10.12.2021 passed by the learned City Civil and Sessions
Court, Court No.4, Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No.628 of
2019 stand quashed and set aside qua present applicant. The
applicant-accused is acquitted of the charge under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The applicant shall be
released forthwith if his presence is not required in any other
offence. Bail bond, if any, stands cancelled.
8. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct
Service is permitted.
(SAMIR J. DAVE,J)
rakesh/
