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 Mr.Amit Chaudhary, 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 entire cheque amount has been deposited by the petitioner – original accused with the Registry of this Court, to be paid to the respondent No.2 – original complainant towards cheque amount and as request is made by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner petitioner - original accused to permit the petitioner 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 Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Umreth in Criminal Case No.1465 of 2005 dtd.29/9/2010, in convicting the petitioner - original accused for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for the dishonour of the cheque in question as well as the impugned judgement and order passed by the learned appellate court - learned 2nd (Ad-hoc) Additional Sessions Judge, Anand in Criminal Appeal No.25 of 2010 dtd.10/10/2012, by which the learned appellate court had dismissed the said appeal confirming the judgement and order passed by the learned trial court.
4. Today when the present Revision Application is taken up for final hearing, Mr.Trivedi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner – original accused has stated at the bar that the petitioner – original accused has already deposited a sum of Rs.1,28,000/-, being cheque amount with the registry of this Court on 30/10/2012, which may be permitted to be withdrawn by the respondent No.2 – original complainant. He has also stated at the bar that the parties have settled the dispute amicably and on permitting the respondent No.2 – original complainant to withdraw the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,28,000/-, 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. He has also stated at the bar that 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 Vs. Sayed Babalal H., reported in (2010) 5 SCC 663, while requesting to permit him to compound the offence for which he has been convicted. Therefore, it is requested to permit the petitioner – original accused to compound the offence for which he has been convicted.
5. Mr.Chaudhary, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the respondent No.2 – original complainant. He has also reported that the respondent No.2 – original complainant is also personally present in the Court.
6. The learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties have placed on record Consent Terms arrived at between the parties, which is directed to be taken on record.
7. Mr.Chaudhary, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 – original complainant, under the instructions from the respondent No.2 – original complainant, who is personally present in the court, has stated at the bar that on permitting the respondent No.2 – original complainant to withdraw the amount of Rs.1,28,000/- which the petitioner - original accused has deposited with the registry of this Court, 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 settlement between the parties.
8. Heard Mr.Trivedi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner – original accused, Mr.Chaudhary, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 – original complainant and Mr.Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 – State.
9. It is reported that the parties have settled the dispute amicably. It is also reported that the petitioner - original accused has deposited the entire cheque amount of Rs.1,28,000/- with the Registry of this Court to be paid to the respondent No.2 – original complainant. It is also reported that the petitioner - original accused has also deposited Rs.19,200/- being 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 (supra) while requesting to permit him to compound the offence for which he has been convicted. It is reported that the respondent No.2 herein – original complainant has no objection if the petitioner - original accused is permitted to compound the offence for which he has been convicted on permitting him to withdraw the amount of Rs.1,28,000/- which the petitioner - original accused has deposited towards cheque amount. Under the circumstances and considering the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, petitioner herein - original accused is hereby permitted to compound the offence for which he has been convicted and consequently, present Revision Application is allowed and impugned order passed by the Additional Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Umreth in Criminal Case No.1465 of 2005 dtd.29/9/2010 as well as the impugned judgement and order passed by the learned 2nd (Ad-hoc) Additional Sessions Judge, Anand in Criminal Appeal No.25 of 2010 dtd.10/10/2012, 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.
Registry is directed to pay Rs.1,28,000/- deposited by the petitioner - original accused, to the respondent No.2 – original complainant by Account Payee Cheque at the earliest.
Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct Service is permitted.
[M.R. SHAH, J.] rafik