Gujarat High Court
Rajiv Subhash Jain vs State Of Gujarat on 11 November, 2022
Bench: Ilesh J. Vora
R/SCR.A/11496/2022 ORDER DATED: 11/11/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 11496 of 2022
==========================================================
RAJIV SUBHASH JAIN
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MALAYKUMAR S PATEL(8901) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR JIGAR L PATEL for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR DHAWAN JAYSWAL APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
Date : 11/11/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mrs. Krina Calla, learned
APP and Mr. Jigar Patel, learned advocate waives service
of notice of Rule for and on behalf of respondent Nos. and
2 respectively. Mr. Jigar Patel, learned advocate is
permitted to file his vakalatnama in the Registry.
2. By this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, read with Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has sought quashing of
the judgment and order dated 28.11.2018 passed by the
learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, N.I. Act, Court
no. 31, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No. 4827 of 2017,
whereby, petitioner is order to undergo 1 year SI and
compensation of Rs.2,10,000/- awarded and default to
R/SCR.A/11496/2022 ORDER DATED: 11/11/2022
pay, further SI for 3 months and order dated 05.03.2021
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, City
Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No. 675 of
2018, whereby, the learned Sessions Court has rejected
the Appeal and issued non-bailable warrant against the
petitioner.
3. It appears that the settlement has been arrived at
between the complainant and present petitioner and the
entire cheque amount has been paid to the respondent
no. 2, which has been confirmed by the complainant by
detailed affidavit, which has been placed on record. The
complainant do not wish to proceed further and is willing
to compound the offence. Accordingly, the petitioner by
filing this petition, seeks compounding of the offence
under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
4. The petitioner also submits that the Company is
willing to deposit cost as directed by the Supreme Court in
case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H.,
reported in (2010) 5 SCC 633, with the Legal Service
Authority.
5. In case of Kripalsingh Pratapsingh Vs. Salvinder
Kaur Hardisingh Lohana, reported in (2004) 2 GLH
544, the coordinate Bench of this Court after considering
various decisions of the Apex Court, took a view that it
R/SCR.A/11496/2022 ORDER DATED: 11/11/2022
would be permissible for the High Court in exercise of its
inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code, to record
the settlement arrived at between the parties and acquit
the accused of the charges.
6. Thus, taking into account the fact of settlement, the
compounding of the offence is hereby permitted. As a
result, the petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute to
aforesaid extent. The judgment order passed by the
Courts below i.e. order dated 28.11.2018 and 05.03.2021
and warrant issued by the trial Court, are hereby quashed
and set aside. The petitioner is acquitted of the offences
under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The petitioner is directed to deposit Rs.10,000/- with the
Gujarat State Legal Service Authority within a period of 4
weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Direct service
permitted.
(ILESH J. VORA,J)
P.S. JOSHI
