Gujarat High Court
Bharatbhai Kantibhai Valand vs State Of Gujarat on 28 June, 2024
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/917/2024 ORDER DATED: 28/06/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST CONVICTION -
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT) NO. 917 of 2024
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (REGULAR BAIL) NO. 1 of 2024
In R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 917 of 2024
==========================================================
BHARATBHAI KANTIBHAI VALAND
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. JAVED S QURESHI(6999) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR HARDIK MEHTA, ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 28/06/2024
ORAL ORDER
1. RULE. Learned advocates waive service of Rule on behalf
of the respective respondents.
2. Challenge in this Revision Application is given to the
judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated
09.05.2024 passed by the learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Kapadwanj in Criminal Case no. 679
of 2022.
3. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that during
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/917/2024 ORDER DATED: 28/06/2024
undefined
the pendency of the proceedings, parties have settled the
disputes amicably outside the Court and that there
remains no grievance between them.
4. Learned advocate for respondent no.2 - original
complainant has placed on record the affidavit of
settlement filed by the respondent no.2-original
complainant and stated that the proposed settlement
amount, as agreed between the parties, has already been
paid. The same is taken on record. Learned advocate
Mr. Wasim M. Pathan seeks permission to file
Vakalatnama. Let Vakalatnama be accepted.
5. Today, Rami Anjaniben Sandipkumar - respondent no.2
is present before this Court and the respondent no.2 has
affirmed the contents of the affidavit and is identified by
learned advocate for respondent no.2. Respondent no.2
has further stated that total amount of Rs.1,50,000/- had
to be recovered from the present applicant and by way of
affidavit, she stated that the total amount has been
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/917/2024 ORDER DATED: 28/06/2024
undefined
received.
6. 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 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 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 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.
7. In aforesaid view of the matter, the judgment and order
passed by the learned Trial Court of conviction and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/917/2024 ORDER DATED: 28/06/2024
undefined
sentence for the offence punishable under Section 138 of
the NI Act is quashed and set aside. The applicant stands
acquitted.
8. Accordingly, the present application is allowed in the
above terms. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid
extent. Direct service is permitted.
(GITA GOPI,J)
DRASHTI K. SHUKLA
