Gujarat High Court
Navinbhai Hirabhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 31 May, 2022
Bench: Nisha M. Thakore
R/CR.MA/9480/2022 ORDER DATED: 31/05/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 9480 of 2022
==========================================================
NAVINBHAI HIRABHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MAHESH K POOJARA(5879) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS. M.H.BHATT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 31/05/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. Mr. Kishan Prajapati, learned advocate states that
he has received instructions to appear for and on
behalf of the original complainant-respondent No.2
and he shall file his Vakalatnama before the Registry.
Registry shall accept the same.
2. Rule. Ms. M.H.Bhatt, learned APP waives service
of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent
No.1-State.Mr. Kishan Prajapati, learned advocate
waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of
the original complainant -respondent No.2.
3. By way of present application, the applicant
has requested to take the settlement on record
R/CR.MA/9480/2022 ORDER DATED: 31/05/2022
and compound the offence by quashing and setting
aside the judgment and order dated 18.4.2022
passed below Ex. 25 in Criminal Case No.622 of
2021 by learned 7th Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Gandhinagar and acquit the applicant.
4. Today, when the matter was taken up for
hearing, learned advocates for the respective
parties jointly submitted that the dispute between
the parties is settled amicably.
5. Learned advocate for the respondent no.2
further submitted that original complainant-
respondent No.2 is personally present before this
Court and he is identified by him. The original
complainant has also confirmed the fact that the
dispute has been settled and he is in receipt of the
disputed amount. He therefore, has no objection if
impugned order of conviction is quashed and set
aside. He has also filed his affidavit for the same
which is permitted to be taken on record. Learned
R/CR.MA/9480/2022 ORDER DATED: 31/05/2022
advocate for the respondent no.2 has identified the
signature of the respondent no.2 in the affidavit.
6. Learned APP for the respondent-State has
submitted that while recording evidence produced
on record, learned court below has awarded
sentence upon the applicant and thus, present
application is required to be dismissed. She has
therefore prayed not to entertain the application
of Section 482 of Cr.P.C and dismiss the present
application. She has further submitted that this
Court may not exercise inherent powers under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C, since once the order of
conviction is passed, the only remedy available to
the applicant is to challenge by way of statutory
appeal.
7. 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 affidavit filed
R/CR.MA/9480/2022 ORDER DATED: 31/05/2022
by the respondent no.2, it appears that the dispute
is settled amicably between the parties and for the
same, the applicant has paid the settlement
amount to the respondent no.2 and respondent
no.2 has acknowledge the same and has expressed
no objection if the impugned order is quashed.
8. The relevant paragraphs of the affidavit filed
by the respondent no.2 on 18 th May, 2022 are as
under:
It is submitted at present the dispute between
us is amicably resolved with the help of friends and
traders and dispute is settled as amount is paid and
account is settled and there is no outstanding
towards account and therefore, now there is no ill will
or grievance remain between us and all dispute is
amicably resolved between us and therefore, I do not
want to continue with my complaint further and
therefore I earnestly urge this Hon'ble Court to
terminate the proceeding as prayed by petitioner in
the interest of justice.
R/CR.MA/9480/2022 ORDER DATED: 31/05/2022
9. 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
R/CR.MA/9480/2022 ORDER DATED: 31/05/2022
(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."
10. 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 respondent no.2 having
received settlement amount, I am of the opinion
that present application is required to be allowed
and the parties are permitted to compound the
offence.
11. In the result, present application is allowed.
The judgment and order dated 18.4.2022 passed
R/CR.MA/9480/2022 ORDER DATED: 31/05/2022
below Ex.25 in Criminal Case No.622 of 2021 by
learned 7th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Gandhinagar stands 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.
(NISHA M. THAKORE,J)
BEENA SHAH
