Gujarat High Court
Nilesh Kantilal Popat vs Indusind Bank Ltd. Through Authorized ... on 7 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/687/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST CONVICTION -
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT) NO. 687 of 2025
==========================================================
NILESH KANTILAL POPAT
Versus
INDUSIND BANK LTD. THROUGH AUTHORIZED OFFICER & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NAKUL PRADHAN for MS KHUSHI P JADAV(7351) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HARDIK MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 07/05/2025
ORAL ORDER
Registry to accept vakalatnama of learned advocate Mr. Dhruvik
K. Patel, 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 the 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 dated 01.02.2024 passed by the learned 7 th Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamnagar in Criminal Case No.9105 of 2022,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/687/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2025
undefined
whereby the Trial Court has been pleased to hold the applicant guilty
for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 (for short "NI Act") and sentenced to undergo SI
of two years and also directed to pay an amount of Rs.25,44,000/- to
the original complainant as compensation. The said order was assailed
before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar by way of
Criminal Appeal No.314 of 2024, which came to be dismissed vide
impugned Judgment and order dated 22.11.2024 and the order of
conviction has been confirmed and upheld by the concerned
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 for original complainant has reiterated the
contentions raised by the learned advocate for the applicant. The
Legal Executive i.e. authorized person of the original complainant
namely Shri Ashokkumar Manilal Aiyar has remained present through
virtual mode and is identified by learned advocate for the original
complainant. He has confirmed the factum of settlement and the fact
that he has issued the No Due Certificate to the applicant. On inquiry
made by the Court, original complainant has declared before this
Court that the dispute between the applicant and the original
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/687/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2025
undefined
complainant is resolved and cheque amount has already been received
by the original complainant 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 wants to pursue for the further litigation as
complainant and applicant have settled the matter. Even 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.25,44,000/- to the complainant and said fact has been confirmed by
the complainant as offence is compoundable one at any stage under
Section 147 of the NI Act. But, as 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 order
dated 01.02.2024 passed by the learned 7 th Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Jamnagar in Criminal Case No.9105/2022 as well as the
order dated 22.11.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Jamnagar in Criminal Appeal No.314 of 2024 are hereby
quashed and set aside with respect to the applicant subject to deposit
of 15% of the amount of cheque i.e. Rs.3,81,600/- out of the total
cheque amount of Rs.25,44,000/- before the Gujarat State Legal
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/687/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2025
undefined
Services Authority.
[10.0] 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.
[11.0] The present application is allowed qua applicant. Rule is made
absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.)
Ajay
