1. Present Criminal Revision Application, under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been preferred by the petitioner herein - original accused to quash and set aside the impugned Judgement and Order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Bhavnagar in Criminal Case No. 4079 of 1998 dtd.9/7/2002, in convicting the petitioner - original accused for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonour of the cheque of Rs.2 Lacs as well as the impugned Judgement and Order passed by the learned appellate court – learned Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar in Criminal Appeal No.32 of 2002 dtd.14/2/2005, by which the learned appellate court has dismissed the said appeal confirming the Judgement and Order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court.
2. Today when the present Revision Application is taken up for final hearing, Mr.R.D. Dave, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner - original accused has stated at the bar that the parties have settled the dispute amicably and by now the petitioner has paid the entire amount under the cheque in question with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of issuance of the cheque as well as Rs.15,000/- towards costs of the litigation and therefore, now nothing is due and payable by the petitioner - original accused to the original complainant under the cheque in question which has been dishonoured. He has also stated at the bar that the even the petitioner - original accused has also deposited 15% of the cheque amount with the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority, which the petitioner - original accused is required to deposit as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu Versus Sayed Babalal H., reported in (2010)5 SCC 663, so as to enable the petitioner herein – original accused to compound the offence for which he has been convicted. He has also stated at the bar that the original complainant has no objection if the petitioner - original accused is permitted to compound the offence for which he has been convicted. Therefore, he has requested to permit the original accused to compound the offence for which he has been convicted.
3. Ms.Prayanka Patel, learned advocate appearing for Dr.Rajesh Acharya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 herein - original complainant has stated at the bar under the instructions from the original complainant that the respondent No.1 - original complainant has received the entire cheque amount with interest at the rate of 6% per annum with costs. She has also stated at the bar that in view of the above, the respondent No.1 - original complainant has no objection if the petitioner - original accused is permitted to compound the offence for which he has been convicted.
4. Ms.Chetna Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has requested to pass appropriate order in the facts and circumstances of the case.
5. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties.
6. From the above, it appears and it is reported that now the parties have settled the dispute amicably and the entire amount under the cheque in question along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of issuance of the cheque and even Rs.15,000/- towards the costs of litigation, has been paid by the petitioner - original accused to the respondent No.1 herein - original complainant. It is also reported that in view of the above, the respondent no.1 herein – 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 also deposited 15% of the cheque amount which the petitioner is required to deposit in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu (supra) while praying to permit him to compound the offence for which he has been convicted.
7. In view of the above and considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu (supra), petitioner herein is permitted to compound the offence for which he has been convicted and consequently, present Criminal Revision Application is allowed and the impugned Judgement and Order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Bhavnagar in Criminal Case No. 4079 of 1998 dtd.9/7/2002 as well as the impugned Judgement and Order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar in Criminal Appeal No.32 of 2002 dtd.14/2/2005, are hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, if the petitioner herein - 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.