Muhammadmiya Hamidmiya Shaikh vs State Of Gujarat

B.N. Karia, J

1 . Mr. Jarjeeskhan A. Pathan, learned advocate submits that he has received instructions to appear on behalf of respondent no. 2 and he shall file his Vakalatnama in the Registry. Registry is directed to accept his Vakalatnama.

The applicant has challenged the impugned judgment and order dated 17.06.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2019 by learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Dahod, as well as the order dated 27.03.2019 passed in Criminal Case No. 1626 of 2014 by learned Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dahod.

When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned advocates for both the sides have jointedly submitted that the matter is amicably settled between the parties.

4 . Heard learned advocate for the respective parties and learned APP for the respondent-State.

5 . Learned advocate for respondent no. 2 has submitted that representative of respondent no. 2 viz. Navinbhai Virchandbhai Parmar was retired from the office of respondent no. 2 on 30.06.2017 as he was serving as a Loan Officer. After his retirement, Rajeshkumar Prakashchandra Shah is appointed by the Managing Committee and resolution was passed. Learned advocate for respondent no. 2 has produced the resolution issued by respondent no. 2 appointing Rajeshkumar Prakashchandra Shah on 30.11.2019 which is taken on record. Further, he has submitted that the cheque amount of Rs. 4,15,123/- was received by respondent no. 2-bank from the present applicant and letter dated 15.10.2019 was issued to the applicant by respondent no. 2. Request was made by learned advocate for respondent no. 2 to quash and set aside the proceedings as the cheque amount is received by the complainant and he has no objection if the impugned judgment and order dated 17.06.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2019 by learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Dahod, as well as the order dated 27.03.2019 passed in Criminal Case No. 1626 of 2014 by learned Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dahod are quashed and set aside. That Adhar Card of respondent no. 2 is produced on record.

6 . Learned advocate for the applicant has also supported the submissions made by learned advocate for respondent no. 2 submitting that the cheque amount is entirely paid by the applicant to respondent no. 2 and no dispute remains to be agitated by either side.

Learned APP for the respondent-State has submitted that looking to the facts and circumstances of present case, necessary orders may be passed.

The Apex Court in the case of Vinay Devanna Nayak V/s Ryot Seva Sahakari Bank Ltd. reported in AIR 2008 SC 716 has observed as under in paras 17 and 18 of the judgment:

"17. As observed by this Court in Electronic Trade & Technology Development Corporation Ltd. V. Indian Technologists and Engineers,: (1996) 2 SCC 739, the object of bringing Section 138 in the statute book is to inculcate faith in the efficacy of banking operation and credibility in transacting business on negotiable instruments. The provision is intended to prevent dishonesty on the party of the drawer of negotiable instruments in issuing cheques without sufficient funds or with a view to inducing the payee or holder in due course to act upon it. It thus seeks to promote the efficacy of banking operations and ensures credibility in transacting business through cheques. In such matters, therefore, normally compounding of offences should not be denied. Presumably, Parliament also realized this aspect and inserted Section 147 by the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2002 (Act 55 of 2002)".

Taking into consideration even the said provision (Section 147) and the primary object underlying Section 138, in our judgment, there is no reason to refuse compromise between the parties. We therefore dispose of the appeal on the basis of the settlement arrived at between the appellant and the respondent."

Applying the ratio of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court to the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that the revision application is required to be allowed and the parties be permitted to compound the offence.

Considering the facts of the case, submission made by learned advocates for the applicant and respondent No. 2 as well as learned APP, it appears that the dispute is settled between the parties. Respondent no. 2 has no objection if the application would be allowed. The dispute is amicably settled between the parties and the complainant has declared on oath in his affidavit that he has received an amount of Rs. 4,15,123/- as full and final settlement and complainant does not want to continue the proceedings in connection with the aforesaid complaint.

In the result, present Revision Application is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 17.06.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2019 by learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Dahod, as well as the order dated 27.03.2019 passed in Criminal Case No. 1626 of 2014 by learned Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dahod are quashed and set aside. The applicant-accused is acquitted of the charges levelled against him.

Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct Service is permitted.