Gujarat High Court
Bharatbhai Ganpatlal Suthar vs State Of Gujarat on 24 March, 2022
Bench: B.N. Karia
R/CR.RA/126/2022 ORDER DATED: 24/03/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 126 of 2022
==========================================================
BHARATBHAI GANPATLAL SUTHAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ANKIT Y BACHANI(5424) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. HARDIK SONI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR. SAURABH Y CHANDE(9035) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA
Date : 24/03/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr.Hardik Soni, learned APP
waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent-
State and Mr.Saurabh Chande, learned advocate waives service of
notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent No.2
2. By way of present Criminal Revision Application, applicant
has challenged the order of conviction and sentence dated
26.11.2020 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Deesa
in Criminal Case No. 2373 of 2015 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 1.1.2022 passed in
Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 2021 by learned 2 nd Additional Sessions
R/CR.RA/126/2022 ORDER DATED: 24/03/2022
Judge, Deesa wherein, the learned First appellate Court has been
pleased to dismiss the said appeal and confirmed the judgment and
order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court.
3. Today, respondent No.2- Sanjaykumar Parshottamdas Patel
(H.U.F) was present before this Court and he was identified by
learned advocate for the the respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 has
submitted that dispute is amicably settled between the parties and
cheque amount was received by the complainant. He has filed his
affidavit dated 15.02.2022. Learned advocate for the respondent
No.2 has identified the signature of the respondent No.2 as well as
photographs in the affidavit which was executed before the Notary
on 15.02.2022. Respondent No.2 has no objection if impugned
judgment and orders passed by the Court below are quashed by this
court in view of settlement arrived at between them.
4. An Affidavit was filed by respondent No.2- Sanjaykumar
Parshottamdas Patel (H.U.F) wherein, it is declared that cheque
amount is received by him from the present applicant and he does
not want to proceed with the matter. He has no objection if the
impugned judgment and order is quashed by this Court.
5. Learned advocates for the respective parties also confirm that
R/CR.RA/126/2022 ORDER DATED: 24/03/2022
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 Criminal Revision Application by quashing and
setting aside the impugned judgement and orders challenged in the
present revision application.
6. Learned APP appearing for the respondent-State submits that
the dispute is private in nature and therefore, requested to pass
necessary order.
7. 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
R/CR.RA/126/2022 ORDER DATED: 24/03/2022
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."
8. 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.
9. Considering the facts of the case, submissions made by learned
advocates for the applicant and respondent No.2 as well as learned
APP, it appears that the dispute is settled between the parties..
10. In the result, the revision application is allowed. The judgment
and order dated 26.11.2020 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Deesa in Criminal Case No. 2373 of 2015 as well as
order dated 1.1.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 2021 by
learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Deesa 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.
11. Learned advocate for the applicant further submits that
applicant has deposited 20% cheuqe amount before the Appellate
Court and thereafter, entire cheque amount has already been paid to
R/CR.RA/126/2022 ORDER DATED: 24/03/2022
the complainant-respondent No.2. Therefore, applicant may be
permitted to withdraw such 20% cheque amount deposited by him
before the Appellate Court.
12. Learned advocate for the respondent No.2 has submitted that
he has no objection if 20% cheuqe amount deposited by the present
applicant is permitted to be withdrawn by the present applicant.
13. Considering the submissions made by learned advocates for
the respective parties, 20% cheque amount deposited by the present
applicant shall be refunded to the present applicant after due
verification by the concerned officer of the trial Court.
14. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(B.N. KARIA, J)
SUYASH
