Damyantiben Kumudbhai Chaudhari vs Rakeshbhai Thakorlal Mehta ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5782 Guj

                                                                              NEUTRAL CITATION




      R/CR.RA/997/2023                          ORDER DATED: 08/08/2023

                                                                               undefined




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD


  R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 997 of 2023
                      With
 CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL)
                   NO. 1 of 2023
 In R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 997 of 2023

=================================================
          DAMYANTIBEN KUMUDBHAI CHAUDHARI
                             Versus
       RAKESHBHAI THAKORLAL MEHTA PARTNER OF
          PARTNERSHIP FIRM NIRMAL TRADING CO.
=================================================
Appearance:
JAIVIK UDAY BHATT(7319) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR UDAY H BHATT(6457) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
 for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS JIRGA JHAVERI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
=================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI

                          Date : 08/08/2023

                           ORAL ORDER

1. Challenge in this revision application at the instance of the

applicant - accused is given to the concurrent findings of the learned

Courts below of conviction and sentence for the offence punishable

under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act).

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/997/2023 ORDER DATED: 08/08/2023

undefined

2. Rule. Learned advocates for the respective respondents waive

service.

3. Learned advocate for the applicant states that the respondent -

complainant is paid more than the cheque amount and the

complainant has no grievance now. Respondent No. 1 - Rakeshbhai

Thakorlal Mehta - original complainant is present before the Court

and is identified by learned advocate Mr. Bhargav Dangar, who shal

file his appearance, if yet not filed and the registry shall accept the

same. The learned advocate for the respondent No. 1 - original

complainant states that the complainant has received the amount, as

aforesaid, and the complainant does not want to pursue the matter

now in view of amicable settlement and has given consent for

compounding the offence. The complainant also files an affidavit to

that effect, which is directed to be taken on record.

4. Since, the total cheque amount has been received by the

complainant and the complainant has given consent for

compounding the offence, keeping in mind the object of Section 147

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/997/2023 ORDER DATED: 08/08/2023

undefined

of the NI Act, which is an enabling provision which provides for

compounding the offence and may require the consent of the

aggrieved for compounding the offence, however, the specific

provision under Section 147, inserted by way of amendment towards

special law, would give overriding effect to sub-section (1) of

Section 320 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) as has been

observed in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Baba Lal,

AIR 2010 SC 1907. Accordingly, as the dispute has been resolved

and the total cheque amount has been paid to the complainant, in

consonance with the object of the NI Act and the provisions under

Section 147 thereof, the matter is considered as compounded.

5. In aforesaid view of the matter, the judgment and order passed

by the learned trial Court of conviction and sentence for the offence

punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act, as affirmed by the

learned appellate Court, are quashed and set aside. The applicant

stands acquitted. The present revision application is allowed in the

above terms. Connected application also stands disposed of.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/997/2023 ORDER DATED: 08/08/2023

undefined

5.1 The applicant is reported to be in jail. Accordingly, the

concerned jail authority is directed to release the applicant forthwith,

if not required in any other case.

5.2 It is reported that the applicant has deposited 20% amount

before the Appellate Court concerned. Accordingly, the same is

directed to be returned to the applicant, on proper verification.

5.3 Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service is

permitted.

[ Gita Gopi, J. ] hiren