Gujarat High Court
Nitin Mahendrabhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 20 October, 2022
Bench: Niral R. Mehta
R/SCR.A/11330/2022 ORDER DATED: 20/10/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 11330 of 2022
==========================================================
NITIN MAHENDRABHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MAHESH K POOJARA(5879) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR VD CHAUHAN, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS MOXA THAKKAR, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
Date : 20/10/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned APP and
Mr.Chauhan waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf
of respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively. Learned advocate
Mr.V.D. Chauhan is permitted to file his Vakilatnama on
behalf of respondent No.2
2. By this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has sought for quashing of
the judgment and order dated 30th September, 2022 passed by
learned 4th Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Gandhinagar in Criminal Case No.3640 of 2020, whereby the
Court below has allowed the criminal case filed by the
complainant and the petitioner herein-original respondent has
been convicted for simple imprisonment for a period of
eighteen months and also directed to pay cheque amount with
6% interest.
R/SCR.A/11330/2022 ORDER DATED: 20/10/2022
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.
3.1 Complainant - Tarunkumar Chandrakant Thakkar
confirms the factum of settlement arrived at between the
parties. The complainant is personally present before the
Court and is duly identified by learned advocate for the
complainant.
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 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.
R/SCR.A/11330/2022 ORDER DATED: 20/10/2022
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. The
judgment order passed by the Court below i.e. judgment and
order dated 30th September, 2022 passed by learned 4 th
Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gandhinagar in
Criminal Case No.3640 of 2020 is hereby quashed and set
aside. The petitioner is acquitted of the offences under the
provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
7. The petitioner is directed to deposit 15% of the
cheque amount with the Gujarat State Legal Service Authority
within two months from the date of receipt of this order. Rule
is made absolute.
Direct service permitted.
(NIRAL R. MEHTA,J)
ANUP
