1. RULE. Mr.L.B. Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives the service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent No.1 – State and Ms.Nisha Parikh, learned advocate waives the service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent No.2 – original complainant.
2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, and it is reported that the parties have settled the dispute amicably, and the petitioner – original accused has paid the entire cheque amount to the respondent No.2 – original complainant and as the petitioner has requested to permit him to compound the offence for which he has been convicted, present Revision Application is taken up for final hearing today.
3. Present Revision Application, under section 397 of the Code of Criminal procedure, has been preferred by the petitioner – original accused to quash and set aside the impugned judgement and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court - learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara in Criminal Case No.521 of 2003 dtd.18/5/2010, convicting the petitioner - original accused for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonour of the cheque for an amount of Rs.75,000/- as well as the impugned judgement and order passed by the learned appellate court - learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Criminal Appeal No.48 of 2010 dtd.12/9/2012, by which the learned appellate court had dismissed the said appeal confirming the judgement and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court.
4. Today when the present Revision Application is taken up for final hearing, Mr.Singh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner – original accused and Ms.Nisha Parikh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 – original complainant have jointly stated at the bar that the parties have settled the dispute amicably and the petitioner - original accused has paid the cheque amount of Rs.75,000/- to the respondent No.2 – original complainant, by two Demand Drafts.
5. Mr.Singh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner - original accused has stated at the bar that the petitioner - original acused has deposited 15% of the cheque amount with the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority which the petitioner – original accused is required to be deposited in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H., reported in (2010) 5 SCC 663. Therefore, it is requested to permit the petitioner – accused to compound the offence for which he has been convicted.
6. Ms.Nisha Parikh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 – original complainant has filed Affidavit of the respondent No.2 submitting that in view of the above, respondent No.2 – original complainant has no objection if the petitioner - original accused is permitted to compound the offence for which he has been convicted.
7. Mr.L.B. Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has requested to pass appropriate order in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the settlement between the parties.
8. Heard Mr.Singh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner - original accused, Mr.L.B. Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 – State and Ms.Nisha Parikh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 – original complainant.
9. It appears that now parties have settled the dispute amicably and the petitioner - original accused has paid the entire cheque amount of Rs.75,000/- to the respondent No.2 – original complainant and the respondent No.2 – original complainant has no objection if the petitioner - original accused is permitted to compound the offence for which he has been convicted. It is also reported that the petitioner - original accused has deposited 15% of the cheque amount with the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority which the petitioner - original accused is required to deposit in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu (supra) while requesting to permit the petitioner - original accused to compound the offence for which he has been convicted. Under the circumstances, petitioner herein – original accused is permitted to compound the offence for which he has been convicted. Consequently, present Revision Application is allowed and impugned order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara in Criminal Case No.521 of 2003 dtd.18/5/2010, convicting the petitioner - original accused for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonour of the cheque for an amount of Rs.75,000/- as well as the impugned judgement and order passed by the learned appellate court - learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Criminal Appeal No.48 of 2010 dtd.12/9/2012, are hereby quashed and set aside. If the petitioner – original accused is in jail he shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Rule is made absolute accordingly.
Direct Service is permitted.
[M.R. SHAH, J.] rafik