Gujarat High Court
Kalpanaben Mangal Chudasama vs Naresh Satyaprakash Gupta on 19 October, 2022
Bench: Samir J. Dave
R/CR.RA/945/2018 ORDER DATED: 19/10/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 945 of 2018
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR WITHDRAWAL/DISBURSEMENT OF
AMOUNT) NO. 2 of 2022
In R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 945 of 2018
==========================================================
KALPANABEN MANGAL CHUDASAMA
Versus
NARESH SATYAPRAKASH GUPTA & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR BHUNESH C RUPERA(3896) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR CHIRAG B PATEL(3679) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS MONALI BHATT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMIR J. DAVE
Date : 19/10/2022
ORAL ORDER
Order in Criminal Revision Application No.945 of 2018:-
1. Mr. Chirag B. Patel, learned advocate states that he has
received instructions to appear for and on behalf of original
complainant-respondent no.1. He, therefore, seeks
permission to appear on behalf of the respondent no.1.
Permission, as sought for, is granted. He shall file his
Vakalatnama before the Registry. Registry shall accept the
same.
2. By way of present application, the applicant has
requested to quash and set aside the order dated 30/07/2018
passed by learned 11th Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara in
Criminal Appeal No.96 of 2017 and order dated 01/04/2017
R/CR.RA/945/2018 ORDER DATED: 19/10/2022
passed by learned 16th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Vadodara in Criminal Case No.37993 of 2012 and further be
pleased to acquit the applicant from the charges under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.
3. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, a joint
submission was made by learned advocates for the respective
parties that dispute between the parties is settled amicably.
4. Learned advocate for respondent no.1 submits that full
and final settlement has been arrived at between the parties
and respondent no.1 has no objection if the orders passed by
the courts below would be quashed and set aside. He has
produced an affidavit filed by the respondent no.1, which is
taken on record.
5. Learned APP for the respondent-State has submitted
that after recording evidence, learned lower courts have
passed the order of conviction against the present applicant
and therefore, request made by both the learned advocates
for the applicant as well as learned advocate for respondent
no.1 may not be granted.
6. Learned advocate for respondent no.1 has identified the
signature of the respondent no.1 in the affidavit filed by the
respondent no.1 and has confirmed the fact about settlement
arrived at between the parties.
7. Having considered the facts of the case and submissions
R/CR.RA/945/2018 ORDER DATED: 19/10/2022
made by learned advocates for the respective parties as well
as learned APP for the respondent-State and considering the
facts of the affidavit filed by respondent no.1, it appears that
the dispute is settled amicably between the parties and
amount is deposited by the applicant and the applicant has no
objection with regard to withdrawal of the said amount by the
complainant.
8. It appears from the affidavit filed by respondent no.1
that respondent no.1 has no grievances or objection if the
proceedings and impugned judgment and orders are quashed
and set aside qua the applicant accused. If further appears
that respondent no.1 has no ill will against the present
applicant and has stated that he has no objection if the
applicant is ordered to be acquitted from the charges under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
9. The Apex Court in the case of Vinay Devanna Nayak
vs. 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
R/CR.RA/945/2018 ORDER DATED: 19/10/2022
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."
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 contents of
the affidavit filed by respondent no.1, this court is of the
opinion that the present Criminal Revision Application is
required to be allowed and the parties be permitted to
compound the offence.
11. In the result, present Criminal Revision Application is
allowed. The judgment dated 30/07/2018 passed by learned
11th Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Criminal Appeal
No.96 of 2017 and order dated 01/04/2017 passed by learned
16th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara in Criminal
Case No.37993 of 2012 stand quashed and set aside. The
applicant-accused is acquitted of the charge under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Bail bonds, if
any, stands cancelled.
R/CR.RA/945/2018 ORDER DATED: 19/10/2022
12. On a request being made by learned advocate for
respondent no.1, with the consent of learned advocate for the
applicant, the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- deposited by the
applicant-accused before the trial court, Vadodara is
permitted to be withdrawn by the original complainant-
respondent no.1.
13. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct
service is permitted.
Order in Criminal Misc. Application No.2 of 2022:-
In view of order passed in main Criminal Revision
Application, no order is required to be passed in present
application. Present application stands disposed of
accordingly.
(SAMIR J. DAVE,J)
ILA
