Gujarat High Court
Sanjaybhai Kanaiyalal Dholakia ... vs State Of Gujarat on 10 June, 2024
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/756/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/06/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST CONVICTION -
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT) NO. 756 of 2024
==========================================================
SANJAYBHAI KANAIYALAL DHOLAKIA ADMINISTRATER OF M/S
LAXMINARAYAN JEWELERS
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS VIRAL A DETROJA(12122) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR HARDIK MEHTA APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 10/06/2024
ORAL ORDER
1. Mr. Bhavik P. Shah, learned advocate
states that he has instruction to appear on
behalf of respondent no.2 - original complainant
and seeks permission to file vakalatnama.
Permission to file vakalatnama is granted, the
same be accepted.
2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of
notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent -
State and Mr. Bhavik P.Shah, learned advocate
waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/756/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/06/2024
undefined
respondent no.2.
3. By way of this application, the
applicant - revisionist challenges the order of
conviction passed in Criminal Appeal No.573 of
2022 by 13th Additional Sessions Judge, Surat,
whereby the Court has confirmed the order of
conviction and sentence passed by 8th Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat in Criminal Case
No.15290 of 2020.
4. Ms. Viral A.Detroja, learned advocate
for the revisionist submitted that more than the
cheque amount along with interest have been paid
to the complainant and the settlement has been
executed before the Notary on 09.05.2024.
Advocate Ms. Detroja stated that the complainant
has has also filed an affidavit affirming the
factum of settlement and receipt of the amount.
5. Mr. Bhavik P.Shah, learned advocate for
respondent no.2 - original complainant, concurred
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/756/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/06/2024
undefined
with the factum of settlement of the dispute, as
advanced by learned advocate Ms. Detroja
appearing for the applicant.
6. Advocate Mr. Bhavik P.Shah for the
Respondent no.2 - original complainant has
presented the affidavit of the complainant -
original respondent no.2, who is present before
the Court and is identified by him. The
respondent no.2 - original complainant has
affirmed his affidavit and stated that he has
received the amount as per the receipt executed
by him.
7. Advocate Mr. Shah submitted that 20%
amount has been deposited before the Sessions
Court, which may be ordered to be paid to the
complainant on verification of the identity.
8. Since the complainant has given consent
for compounding the offence, keeping in mind the
object of Section 147 of the NI Act, which is an
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/756/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/06/2024
undefined
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 entire amount has been paid to
the complainant, in consonance with the object of
the N.I. Act and the provisions under Section 147
thereof, the matter is considered as compounded.
9. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/756/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/06/2024
undefined
acquitted.
9.1 Let 20% amount, which has been deposited
before the Sessions Court be paid to the
complainant on verification of the identity.
10. Accordingly, the present application
stands disposed of in the above terms. Rule is
made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct
service is permitted.
(GITA GOPI,J)
Pankaj
