Gujarat High Court
Dhirajlal Pranjivan Pandya vs State Of Gujarat on 20 February, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/282/2012 ORDER DATED: 20/02/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 282 of 2012
==========================================================
DHIRAJLAL PRANJIVAN PANDYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HARSHIT S TOLIA(2708) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR PARTH S TOLIA(5617) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR AMIT N CHAUDHARY(5599) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR HK PATEL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 20/02/2024
ORAL ORDER
[1] Rule. Mr. Patel, learned APP and Mr. Chaudhary, learned
advocate, waive service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of
respondent Nos. 1 and 2, respectively.
[2] By way of this application, filed under Section 397, read
with Section 401, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the
petitioner has sought quashing of the judgment and order
dated 30.05.2012, passed by the learned Principal Sessions
Judge, Amreli, in Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 2012, whereby, it
confirmed the order dated 07.12.2011, passed by the learned
Additional. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amreli, in Criminal
Case No. 1081 of 2007, by which the petitioner has been
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('NI Act', in short), and is
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one
year and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of
the said amount, the petitioner to undergo further simple
imprisonment for a period of fifteen days, over and above the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/282/2012 ORDER DATED: 20/02/2024
undefined
compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-, as provided under Section 357
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
[3] The brief facts of the case are that the original
complainant-Respondent No.2, herein, filed a complaint before
the JMFC Court, wherein, it was stated that Respondent No.2
and the petitioner were known to each other since 1996, as the
petitioner was teacher of Respondent No.2. Due to teacher-
student relationship between the petitioner and Respondent
No.2, the petitioner used to borrow money from Respondent
No.2, frequently and he also used to return the same. It was,
further, the case of Respondent No.2 that in the year 2006, he
lent an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the petitioner and towards
the same, the petitioner issued a cheque bearing No. 4387790,
Dated: 12.01.2007, which was drawn on Dena Bank, Amreli.
However, before Respondent No.2 could present the said
cheque for payment, on 10.01.2017, the petitioner intimated
Respondent No.2 over cell phone and instructed him to deposit
the said cheque on 04.06.2007. When Respondent No.2
produced the aforesaid cheque for payment on 04.06.2007, as
per the instructions of the petitioner, the same came to be
returned with the remarks 'Insufficient Funds'.
[3.1] Hence, Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint before the
Additional. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amreli, which came
to be registered as Criminal Case No. 1081 of 2007. In the said
matter, after hearing both the sides, the JMFC Court passed the
impugned order dated 07.12.2011.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/282/2012 ORDER DATED: 20/02/2024
undefined
[3.2] Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner filed
Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 2012 before the learned Principal
Sessions Judge, Amreli, who dismissed the same vide order
dated 30.05.2012.
[3.3] Hence, the petitioner has filed the present Revision
application.
[4] Today, when the matter was taken-up for hearing,
learned Advocate, Mr. Tolia, appearing for the petitioner and
learned Advocate, Mr. Chaudhary, appearing for Respondent
No.2 jointly stated that an amicable, out of Court settlement,
has been arrived at between the complainant and present
petitioner and the entire cheque amount has been re-paid to
respondent No.2, which has been confirmed by the
complainant by detailed affidavit, which is produced on record
separately. It is further, stated in the affidavit that the
complainant do not wish to proceed further and is willing to
compound the offence. Accordingly, the petitioner, by filing
this application, seeks compounding of the offence.
[5] So far as the costs for compounding of the offence with the
Legal Service Authority is concerned, as directed by the
Supreme Court in case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed
Babalal H., reported in (2010) 5 SCC 633, learned Advocate,
Mr. Toliya, submitted that the petitioner-accused is aged about
80 years and he is also suffering with 40% vision disability. It
was, therefore, submitted that as the amount of cheque has
already been paid, no order qua compounding charges be
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/282/2012 ORDER DATED: 20/02/2024
undefined
passed.
[6] 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 to record the settlement arrived at between the parties
and acquit the accused of the charges.
[7] Thus, taking into account the fact of settlement, the
compounding of the offence is hereby permitted. Further,
taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is aged
about 78 years and is suffering from blindness, he is exempted
from the payment of costs towards compounding.
[8] As a result, the present petition is ALLOWED. The
judgment and order dated 30.05.2012, passed by the learned
Principal Sessions Judge, Amreli, in Criminal Appeal No. 1 of
2012 as well as the order dated 07.12.2011, passed by the
learned Additional. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amreli, in
Criminal Case No. 1081 of 2007, are hereby quashed and set
aside. The petitioner is ordered to be released, if in custody,
and only if not required in connection with any other case, as
he is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act. Rule is made absolute to the
aforesaid extent. Direct service permitted.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
UMESH/-
