Gujarat High Court
Kamlesh Ramchandra Wadhwani vs State Of Gujarat on 25 August, 2023
Bench: M. R. Mengdey
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/340/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 340 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY Sd/-
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed NO
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy NO
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question NO
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
KAMLESH RAMCHANDRA WADHWANI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR D M AHUJA(115) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HEMANT B RAVAL(3491) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS VRUNDA SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
Date : 25/08/2023
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By filing the present Application under Section 397 read
with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the
Petitioner [Original Accused] has challenged the order dated
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/340/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2023
undefined
13.5.2013 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Court
No.1, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No. 2076 of 2008 below
Application Exh.14.
2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the present
Revision Application are such that a complaint for the offence
punishable under Sections 408 and 506(1) of the Indian Penal
Code was registered against the Petitioner at the instance of
the Complainant namely Kailash Nanakram Wadhwani. The
said FIR had culminated into Criminal Case No. 2076 of 2008
and was pending trial before the concerned Trial Court.
Pending the proceedings, an Application vide Exh.14 came to
be submitted on behalf of the Applicant to the effect that since
the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and
the offence alleged against the Petitioner is compoundable
under the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, it was requested to accept the compromise arrived
at between the parties to discharge the present Petitioner.
The Trial Court, vide impugned order, had dismissed the said
Application on the ground that the offence punishable under
Section 408 of IPC is compoundable only to the extent of
Rs.2000/- whereas in the present case, the amount involved in
the offence is above Rs. 1 lac, and therefore, the offence
alleged against the present Petitioner cannot be said to be
compoundable.
3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, the
Petitioner has preferred the present Application.
4. Heard learned Advocate Mr. D.M.Ahuja appearing for the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/340/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2023
undefined
Petitioner. He submitted that the offence alleged against the
present Petitioner is compoundable in view of Section 320 of
Cr.P.C. and the matter has been amicably settled between the
parties. He has also produced a copy of the deposition of the
first informant on record. He further submitted that
Respondent No.2 herein had submitted an Application before
the concerned Trial Court for compounding the offence under
Section 320 of Cr.P.C.. The said Application was rejected by
the Trial Court on the ground that as per the provision of
Section 320 of Cr.P.C., the offence punishable under Section
408 of IPC is compoundable only to the extent of Rs.2000/-
and, since the amount involved in the present case is above
Rs.1 lac, the same is not compoundable. He submitted that
the reason given by the Trial Court is not germane to the
provisions of law. The concerned Trial Court has committed a
serious error of law in dismissing the Application submitted by
Respondent No.2 herein. He therefore submitted to allow the
present Revision Application and quash and set aside the order
impugned in the present Application and allow the parties in
the present proceedings to compound the offence.
5. Learned APP Ms. Vrunda C. Shah appearing for the
Respondent - State has opposed the present Revision
Application.
6. Respondent No.2 - Kailash Nanakram Wadhwani is
personally present before the Court and submitted that the
matter has been amicably settled between the parties and he
has no objection if the offence in question is allowed to be
compounded.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/340/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2023
undefined
7. Heard learned Advocates for the parties and perused the
record.
8. Respondent No. 2 herein had lodged a private complaint
against the Petitioner to the effect that the Petitioner was
working with Respondent No.2 as a Recovery Clerk. As a part
of his duty, the Applicant had recovered Rs. 1,06,152/- from
the various customers of Respondent No.2 instead of handing
over the said amount in cash to Respondent No.2. The
Petitioner had misappropriated the said amount and had thus
cheated Respondent No.2. Upon receipt of the complaint, the
concerned Trial Court had ordered investigation under Section
156(3) of Cr.P.C. The Investigating Agency, after conclusion of
investigation, filed chargesheet against the present Petitioner
and thus the Petitioner was put to trial for the said offences.
Pending the trial, an Application was given by the present
Respondent No.2 to the effect that the matter had been
amicably settled between the parties and therefore he may be
allowed to compound the offence punishable under Section
408 and 506 of IPC in view of the provision of Section 320 of
Cr.P.C. The said Application came to be turned down by the
Trial Court on the ground that the offence punishable under
Section 408 is compoundable only to the extent of Rs. 2000/-
whereas the amount involved in the present case is above Rs.1
lac.
9. Upon perusal of provision Section 320 of Cr.P.C., the
offences punishable under Sections 408 and 506 of IPC are
made compoundable. However, there is no reference to the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/340/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2023
undefined
effect that the offence punishable under Section 408 of IPC is
compoundable to the extent of Rs.2000/- only.
10. A certified copy of the deposition of Respondent No.2
recorded before the Trial Court vide Exh.12 is also produced on
record. Respondent No.2, in his deposition, has clearly stated
that; he has settled the matter with the present Petitioner and
the Petitioner has also returned his money, and therefore, he
does not want to proceed with the present matter any further.
Thus, when the matter is amicably settled between the parties
and the provision of Section 320 of Cr.P.C. is absolutely silent
as regards the compounding of offence punishable under
Section 408 of IPC only to the extent of Rs.2000/-, it appears
that the concerned Trial Court has committed an error in
passing the impugned order. The Application therefore
deserves to be allowed, and hence, the same is hereby
allowed. The impugned order dated 13.5.2013 passed by the
learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.1, Ahmedabad in
Criminal Case No. 2076 of 2008 is hereby quashed and set
aside and the Respondent No.2 is allowed to compound the
offence in view of the provision of Section 320 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid
extent.
(M. R. MENGDEY,J)
GIRISH
