Gujarat High Court
Murtuza Mustufa Kagdi vs State Of Gujarat on 21 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/112/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST CONVICTION -
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT) NO. 112 of 2025
==========================================================
MURTUZA MUSTUFA KAGDI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NK MAJMUDAR(430) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR KRUTIK PARIKH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 21/02/2025
ORAL ORDER
Registry to accept vakalatnama of learned advocate Mr. Riyaz R.
Parmar, who has instructions to appear for the original complainant.
[1.0] RULE. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as learned
advocate appearing for the Complainant waive service of notice of
Rule on behalf of the respective respondents.
[2.0] Considering the issue involved in the present application and
with consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties as well as considering the fact that the dispute amongst the
applicant and original complainant has been resolved amicably, this
application is taken up for final disposal forthwith as alleged offence
is bailable and compoundable.
[3.0] By way of this application under Section 438 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS") read with Section
442 of BNSS, the applicant has prayed for quashing and setting aside
the judgment and order dated 30.03.2024 passed by the learned 3 rd
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/112/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/02/2025
undefined
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharuch in Criminal Case No.5514
of 2019, whereby the Trial Court has been pleased to hold the
applicant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short "NI Act") and sentenced
to undergo SI of one year and also directed to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-
to the original complainant. The said order was assailed by way of
Criminal Appeal No.112 of 2024 before the learned 2 nd Additional
Sessions Judge, Bharuch and by way of impugned Judgment and order
dated 04.01.2025, said appeal came to be dismissed and the order of
conviction has been confirmed and upheld by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge. Hence, this Revision Application is filed.
[4.0] Learned advocate for the applicant has taken this Court
through the factual matrix arising out of the present application. At
the outset, it is submitted that the parties have amicably resolved the
issue. It is further submitted that in view of the fact that the dispute is
resolved, present application deserves consideration.
[5.0] Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State
has opposed the present application and submitted that considering
the seriousness of the offence, present application may be rejected.
[6.0] Learned advocate Mr. Riyaz R. Parmar for the Original
Complainant has reiterated the contentions raised by the learned
advocate for the applicant. The learned advocate for original
complainant also relied upon the affidavit filed by the original
complainant - NARESH SARDARMAL SONI - Original Complainant
who is also personally present in person before the Court and is
identified by learned advocate for the original complainant. The
affidavit sworn by the original complainant is taken on record. On
inquiry made by the Court, original complainant has declared before
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/112/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/02/2025
undefined
this Court that the dispute between the applicant and the original
complainant is resolved and therefore, now the grievance stands
redressed. It is therefore submitted that the present application may
be allowed.
[7.0] At the outset, learned advocates for the respective parties
have jointly submitted that matter is settled and now the original
complainant does not want to pursue the litigation any further as
complainant and applicant have settled the matter and in this regard,
affidavit of original complainant has been placed, which is taken on
record. The contents of the affidavit are also admitted by the original
complainant. Even the complainant has remained present before this
Court and stated that he has no objection if the conviction recorded
by the learned Trial Court as well as Appellate Court is set aside.
[8.0] Considering the fact that the dispute is settled between the
parties and the applicant has paid the cheque amount i.e. Rs.1,00,000/-
to the original complainant and said fact has been confirmed by the
complainant. As the offence is compoundable one at any stage under
Section 147 of the NI Act, but as the accused has settled the dispute at
belated stage before this Court, in view of the decision rendered in
the case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H, reported in
2010(5) SCC 663, accused is required to be saddled with cost.
[9.0] Resultantly, this revision application is allowed. The
judgment and order dated 30.03.2024 passed by the learned 3 rd
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharuch in Criminal Case No.5514
of 2019 as well as the judgment and order dated 04.01.2015 passed by
the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch in Criminal Appeal
No.112 of 2024 are hereby quashed and set aside, subject to applicant
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/112/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/02/2025
undefined
depositing 15% of the amount of cheque i.e. Rs.37,500/- as total
cheque amount is Rs.2,50,000/- before the Gujarat State Legal
Services Authority.
[10.0] Learned advocate for the applicant, upon instructions,
stated that applicant has deposited 20% of the cheque amount i.e.
Rs.50,000/- before the learned trial Court and the applicant has no
objection if the said amount is handed over to the original
complainant.
[11.0] On compliance of the said order, if the applicant is behind
the bars, he shall be released subject to deposit of aforesaid amount
of cost, if his presence is no longer required in any other criminal
offence.
[12.0] The present application is allowed. Rule is made absolute
accordingly. Direct service is permitted.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.)
Ajay
