Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 95 (GUJ)

Ravi Dineshbhai Suthar v. State of Gujarat

2013-02-19

N.V.ANJARIA

body2013
ORDER : N.V. Anjaria, J. The present Revision application is directed against the judgment and order dated 3rd May, 2012 of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Negotiable Instrument Act, Court No.27, Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No. 991 of 2008 whereby the present applicant came to be convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 and sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment. It is further directed that he shall pay the compensation of Rs. 34,500/-. The said judgment and order came to be confirmed by the judgment and order dated 19.01.2013 passed in criminal appeal No. 169 of 2012 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.7, Ahmedabad. 2. On 18.02.2013, this Court passed the following order "1. RULE returnable on 19.02.2013. Ms. Chetnaben Joshi waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No.2 and learned APP Mr. L.R. Pujari waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of Respondent No.1. 2. Learned advocate Ms. Chetnaben Joshi for respondent No.2 submits that she will be filing her appearance during the course of the day. She also tenders an affidavit dated 15.02.2013 of respondent No.2 stating inter alia that he has settled the dispute with the accused having received the disputed cheque amount of Rs.34,500/- . 3. Petitioner - Ravi Dineshbhai Suthar is stated to be present in the Court and is identified by learned advocate Mr. Ashok K Padia. Respondent No.2 - Dhaval Harshadray Chauhan is also stated to be present in the Court and is identified by learned advocate Ms. Chetnaben Joshi. On being asked by the Court, both of them have stated that they have amicably settled the dispute and do not want to continue to prosecute present Revision Application. They are ad idem about the matter having been amicably settled. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Padia for the applicant states that 15% of the amount of the cheque, which is required to be paid to the Gujarat Legal Services Authority, in view of the decision of Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal, (2010) 5 SCC 363, in connection with prayer for compounding the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1882, shall be paid by tomorrow and receipt thereof shall also be produced on record. 5. List the matter on 19.02.2013 for further orders. 6. 5. List the matter on 19.02.2013 for further orders. 6. By way of ad-interim relief, the applicant is directed to remain on bail as granted by the Trial Court till 20.02.2013." 3. Today learned advocate Mr. Ashok Padia for the applicant places on record the receipt of payment of costs ofRs.5,175/- being the 15% of the cheque amount paid to the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority required to be paid in view of the decision of Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu(supra). Learned advocate, therefore, requests that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the offences may be allowed to be compounded. 4. As recorded in the order quoted above, the applicant as well as respondent No.2 who were present yesterday in the Court, stated that they have settled the dispute amicably. In view of the requirement of payment of costs having been satisfied, the request of the learned advocate for compounding of the offences is required to be granted. 5. Accordingly, in view of the facts noted above, the offences under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 is permitted to be compounded. Consequently, the judgment and order dated 3rd May, 2012 of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Negotiable Instrument Act, Court No.27, Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No. 991 of 2008 confirmed by the judgment and order dated 19.01.2013 passed in criminal appeal No. 169 of 2012 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.7, are quashed and set aside hereby. 6. Rule is made absolute in the above term.