1.0 Rule. Shri F.B. Brahmbhatt, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent no.1original complainant and Ms. Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent State. In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties and as it is reported that the parties have settled the dispute amicably and petitioners original accused have already paid the entire cheque amount to the original complainant by 11 installments as per the settlement entered into between the parties and the petitioners prayed for compound the offence for which they have convicted, present application is taken up for final hearing today.
2.0 Present Criminal Revision Application under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the petitioners hereinoriginal accused to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed in Criminal Case No.1104 of 1999, by which the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has convicted the petitioners for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioners have also prayed to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Appellate Court learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No.9, Ahmedabad dated 22.11.2002 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 2001, by which, the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the petitioners hereinoriginal accused confirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court.
3.0 Today when the present Criminal Revision Application is taken up for further hearing / final hearing, Shri Trivedi, learned advocate for the petitioners has stated at the bar that as such the parties have settled the dispute amicably and in fact they have entered into one settlement deed dated 25.2.2009 in Special Civil Suit No.271 of 2008 pending before the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad under which the petitioners agreed to pay entire cheque amount i.e. Rs. 5,00,000/ in 11 quarterly installments commencing from 1.5.2009 and the last installment of Rs.45,000/ was to be paid on or before 1.9.2012. He has stated that petitioner had paid all the installments and have thus paid entire cheque amount i.e. Rs.5 lacs to respondent no.2 and, therefore, now nothing is due and payable by the petitioners to the respondent no.2 hereinoriginal complainant under the cheque which has been dishonoured. He has also stated at the bar that the petitioners have also deposited 15% of the cheque amount i.e. Rs.45,000/ with the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority for which the petitioners are required to be deposited in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H reported in (2010) 5 SCC 663, while requesting for permitting the accused to compound the offence for which they have been convicted.
4.0 Shri Brahmbhatt, learned advocate for the respondent no.1 original complainant has confirmed that entire cheque amount i.e. Rs. 5 lacs is paid to the respondent no.1 original complainant. He has also stated at the bar that in view of above respondent no.1 original complainant has no objection if the petitioners are permitted to compound the offence for which they are convicted.
5.0 Ms. Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has requested to pass appropriate order in view of above settlement between the parties.
6.0 Heard the learned advocate Shri J.T. Trivedi for the petitioners original accused, Shri Brahmbhatt, learned advocate for the respondent no.1 original complainant and Ms. Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State. It is reported that parties have settled the dispute amicably and petitioners herein original accused has paid the entire cheque amount i.e. Rs. 5 lacs to the respondent no.1 hereinoriginal complainant and the petitioners have also paid 15% of the cheque amount i.e. Rs.5 lacs with the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority which the petitionersoriginal accused are required to deposit in view of decision of Damodar S. Prabhu (Supra) while requesting to permit them to compound the offence for which they have been convicted.
7.0 Under the circumstances and in view of the above and to put an end to litigation and as the original complainant has no objection if the petitioners are permitted to compound the offence for which they have been convicted, consequently, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed in Criminal Case No.1104 of 1999 dated 29.11.2001 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.2, Ahmedabad as well as order dated 22.11.2002 passed in Criminal Appeal No.45 of 2001 by the learned City Civil & Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.9, Ahmedabad are hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioners be released forthwith if not required in any other case, if the petitioners are in jail. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
sd/ ( M. R. Shah, J. ) “kaushik”