Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 207 (GUJ)

MANOJKUMAR ASHOKBHAI DARJI v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2019-03-11

V.P.PATEL

body2019
JUDGMENT V P PATEL, J. Criminal REVISIOIN APPLICATION NO.1005 OF 2018 1. Learned advocate Mr. Vivek P. Trivedi is permitted to file his appearance for respondent No.2 - original complainant. 2. Heard learned advocate Ms. Bhavna D. Acharya for the applicant - original accused and learned advocate Mr. Vivek P. Trivedi for respondent No.2 - original complainant. 3. It is also submitted by learned advocate Ms. Acharya that applicant has deposited Rs.51,000/- before the trial Court on 14.09.2018 in Criminal Case No.1864 of 2011. Xerox copy of such receipt is to be taken on record. Now, the remaining amount of Rs.34,000/- is required to be paid to the complainant. The applicant is ready and willing of pay an amount of Rs.34,000/- as per order passed by this Court. The Applicant - accused is directed to deposit such amount before the trial Court. 4. Considering the issue involved in the present case, offence in consideration being compoundable 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 respondent No.2 has been resolved amicably, this application is taken up for final disposal forthwith. Order under challenge 5. By way of this revision application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant has prayed for quashing and setting aside judgment and order dated 10.03.2015 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.32, Ahmedabad in Private Criminal Case No.1864 of 2011 and order dated 14.08.2018 passed by learned City Civil and Session Court No.14, Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No.126 of 2015. Submission of the parties 6. At the outset, it is submitted that the parties have amicably resolved the issue and therefore, any further continuance of the proceedings pursuant to the impugned orders as well as any further proceedings arising therefrom would create hardship to the applicant. It is submitted that applicant has filed an affidavit in these proceedings and has declared that the dispute between the applicant and respondent No.2 is resolved due to intervention of trusted persons of the society. It is further submitted that in view of the fact that the dispute is resolved, the trial would be futile and any further continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law. 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. It is further submitted that in view of the fact that the dispute is resolved, the trial would be futile and any further continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law. 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. K. L. Pandya appearing for the State has submitted that considering the offence being compoundable and for maintaining the harmonious relations between the party and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, just and equitable order may be passed. Merits of the case 8. Parties have produced compromise deed on 08.03.2019 before this Court and it was taken on record on that itself. Respondent No.2 is present in person before the Court and also admits the contents of the affidavit and is identified by learned advocate for respondent No.2. On inquiry made by the Court, respondent No.2 has declared before this Court that the dispute between the applicant and respondent No.2 is resolved due to intervention of trusted persons of the society and therefore, now the grievance stands redressed. 9. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, considering the facts and circumstances arising out of the present application as well as taking into consideration the decisions rendered in the cases of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in, (2012) 10 SCC 303 , Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab reported in, (2008) 4 SCC 582 , Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. reported in, (2009) 1 GLH 31 , Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Ors. reported in, (2009) 1 GLH 190 and Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in, (2014) 2 Crimes(SC) 67, it appears that further continuation of criminal proceedings in relation to the impugned orders against the applicant would be unnecessary harassment to the applicant. 10. I have also considered the latest decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others v. State of Gujarat, Criminal Appeal No.1723 of 2017 dated 4.10.2017 and the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision, particularly paragraph 15. Considering the nature of disputes between the parties which are all private in nature, I am of the opinion that the matter requires consideration. 11. Considering the nature of disputes between the parties which are all private in nature, I am of the opinion that the matter requires consideration. 11. It appears that further continuance of the proceedings pursuant to the impugned judgments and orders would amount to abuse of process of law and hence, to secure the ends of justice, the impugned judgments and orders are required to be quashed and set aside. 12. This Court has considered the directions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Damodar S. Prabhu (supra), which are as under; "15(c) Similarly, if the applciation fo rcompunding is made before the Sessions Court or a High Court in revision or appeal, such compounding may be allowed on the condition that the accused pays 15% of the cheque amount by way of costs." "17. xxx xxx xxx Even though the imposition of costs by the competent court is a matter of discretion, the scale of costs has been suggested in the interest of uniformity. The competent Court can of course reduce the costs with regard to the specific facts and circumstances of a case, while recording reasons in writing for such variance. Xxx xxx xxx" 13. Learned advocate for the applicant has produced affidavit of the applicant which is taken on record. On perusal of such affidavit, it is stated that the applicant - accused is residing in a house comprising one room and kitchen. He is doing tailoring work and earning Rs.400/- to Rs.600/- per day. It is further stated that he has two sons, one is aged about 17 years and studying in 11th standard and another son is aged about 9 years and studying in 3rd standard. It is also submitted that he has old father and mother and he has to spend for their maintenance. It is stated that his financial condition is weak. 14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by learned advocates for the parties and contentions of the affidavit as regards financial condition of the applicant, this Court is of the view that it would be appropriate to direct the applicant to deposit 7.5% amount towards dishonour of the cheque is deposited before the High Court Legal Services Committee towards cost as per the decision in case of Damodar S. Prabhu (supra). 15. 15. Resultantly, this application is allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 10.03.2015 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.32, Ahmedabad in Private Criminal Case No.1864 of 2011 and order dated 14.08.2018 passed by learned City Civil and Session Court No.14, Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No.126 of 2015 are hereby quashed and set aside qua the applicant. 15.1 The applicant - accused is directed to deposit 7.5% of the cheque amount before the High Court Legal Services Committee within two weeks from today. 15.2 The trial Court is directed to disburse the amount of Rs.51,000/-, which is already deposited and Rs.34,000/- which will be deposited by applicant - accused in favour of respondent No.2 - original complainant by account payee cheque after verification of the receipt of amount of 7.5% to be deposited before the High Court Legal Services Committee. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.