1. Rule. Mr.L.B. Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.1 – State and Ms. Medha Pandya, 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 as it is reported that parties have settled the dispute amicably and the entire cheque amount has been paid by the petitioner herein - original accused to the respondent No.2 herein – original complainant and the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the petitioner - original accused has requested to permit the petitioner - original accused to compound the offence for which he has been convicted, present Criminal Revision Application is taken up for final hearing today.
3. Present Criminal Revision Application, under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been preferred by the petitioner – original accused to quash and set aside the judgement and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned 5th Additional Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Surat in Criminal Case No. 15707 of 2008 dtd. 20/11/2009, by which the learned Magistrate has convicted the petitioner - original accused for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act as well as the judgement and order passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in Criminal Appeal No.54 of 2009 dtd.30/7/2011, 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.
4. Today when the present Criminal Revision Application is taken up for final hearing, Ms.Kruti Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner herein – original accused and Ms.Medha Pandy, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent – original complainant have jointly submitted that the parties have settled the dispute amicably and the petitioner herein – original accused has already paid the cheque amount to the respondent No.2 herein – original complainant.
5. Ms.Pandya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 – original complainant has placed on record Affidavit affirmed by the respondent No.2 – original complainant submitting that he has received cheque amount in question from the petitioner - original accused and has no objection if the petitioner - original accused is permitted to compound the offence for which he has been convicted.
6. Ms.Kruti Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner - original accused has stated at the bar that the petitioner - original accused has already deposited 15% of the cheque amount i.e. Rs.4500/- 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, and so as to enable the petitioner herein – original accused to compound the offence for which he has been convicted. Therefore, it is requested to permit the parties to compound the offence and consequently quash and set aside the impugned Judgement and Orders passed by both the courts below.
7. Having heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and considering the subsequent development and settlement between the petitioner herein – original accused and the respondent No.2 herein – original complainant and considering the fact that the entire cheque amount due and payable by the petitioner to the respondent No.2 under the cheque in question has been paid by the petitioner to the respondent No.2 - original complainant and as the petitioner – original accused had deposited 15% of the cheque amount towards cost with the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu (supra) and considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu (supra), the petitioner – original accused is hereby permitted to compound the offence for which he has been convicted. Consequently, both the impugned judgement and orders of conviction and sentence, more particularly, Judgement and Order passed by the learned 5th Additional Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Surat in Criminal Case No. 15707 of 2008 dtd. 20/11/2009 as well as the judgement and order passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in Criminal Appeal No.54 of 2009 dtd.30/7/2011, 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