Gujarat High Court
Ramuji Galabji Vaghela vs State Of Gujarat on 4 May, 2022
Bench: B.N. Karia
R/CR.RA/405/2022 ORDER DATED: 04/05/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 405 of 2022
==========================================================
RAMUJI GALABJI VAGHELA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MAULIK H VAGHELA(7810) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR SHIRISH R PATEL(5605) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS.M.H.BHATT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA
Date : 04/05/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of present Criminal Revision Application, applicant
has challenged impugned judgement and order dated 4.2.2020
passed in Criminal Case No.3648 of 2015 by learned 2 nd Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Mehsana convicting the applicant
for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act (for short "N.I.Act") as well as judgement and order
dated 31.3.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 105 of 2020 by
learned Sessions Judge Mehsana wherein, the learned lower
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.
2.. Today, on a request being made by learned advocate for the
R/CR.RA/405/2022 ORDER DATED: 04/05/2022
respondent No.2 to permit the respondent No.2 to appear before this
Court. Permission as prayed for is granted.Respondent No.2
Mr.Mitesh Dl.Parikh authorized person of Arman Financial Service
Ltd. was present before this Court and submitted that he is
authorized person of Arman Financial Service Ltd. He has produced
a letter under the signature of Vice Chairman & Managing Director
dated 7th October, 2020 which is taken on record. He has submitted
that dispute is amicably settled between the parties and Rs.1,00,000/-
as full and final payment of settlement which is given by the present
applicant to respondent No.2. He has further submitted that
respondent No.2 has no grievance or any objection if this application
may be allowed by this Court by quashing and setting aside the
impugned judgment and orders i.e. 4th February, 2020 and 31st
March, 2022 passed by the Courts below in view of settlement
arrived at between them. Learned advocate for the the respondent
No.2 has identified respondent No.2 Mr. Mitesh D.Parikh,
authorized person of Arman Financial Services Ltd. as well as
contents of the affidavit filed by respondent No.2 dated 5 th April,
2022. Learned advocate for the respondent No.2 has also identified
the signature of the respondent No.2 in the affidavit which was
R/CR.RA/405/2022 ORDER DATED: 04/05/2022
executed before the Notary on 5th April, 2022.
3. In the Affidavit filed by respondent No.2- Mr.Mitesh
D.Parikh, it is stated that:-
2. Further it is respectfully submitted that the dispute between
petitioner and original complainant respondent No.2 herein is
amicably settled and petitioner has duly made payment of
Rs.1,00,000/ (Rupees One Lac only) as full and final amount of
settlement is given by the present petitioner. Therefore, I have no
grievance or any objection if the above mentioned application will
be allowed by this Hon'ble Court and judgement and order dated
31.3.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mehsana in
Criminal Appeal No.105 of 2020 as well as order of conviction
dated 4.2.2020 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate Court, Mehsana in Criminal Case No.3648 of 2015 and
any subsequent proceedings arise therefrom are quashed and set
aside.
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
R/CR.RA/405/2022 ORDER DATED: 04/05/2022
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
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/405/2022 ORDER DATED: 04/05/2022
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 applicant and respondent No.2 as well as learned
APP for the respondent No.1-State, it appears that the dispute is
settled between the parties..
9. In the result, this revision application is allowed. The
judgment and order 4.2.2020 passed in Criminal Case No.3648 of
2015 by learned 2nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,
Mehsana as well as judgement and order dated 31.3.2022 passed in
Criminal Appeal No. 105 of 2020 by learned Sessions Judge
Mehsana stand quashed and set aside. The applicant-accused
acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act except he is not convicted in connection with any
other offence. Bail bond, if any stands vacated. Rule is made
absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(B.N. KARIA, J)
BEENA SHAH
