1. RULE. Ms.Chetna Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives the service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent No.1 – State and Mr.Salim Saiyed, 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 already paid the entire cheque amount of Rs.2,30,000/- to the respondent No.2 – original complainant towards full and final settlement against the cheque of Rs.2,50,000/- which came to be dishonoured and as the petitioner - original accused 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 read with section 401 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 Metropolitan Magistrate, NI Act, Court No.1, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No.767 of 2010 dtd.13/10/2011, convicting the petitioner - original accused for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for the dishonour of the cheque for an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- as well as the impugned judgement and order passed by the learned appellate court - learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.14, City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No.383 of 2011 dtd.21/9/2012, by which the learned appellate court has 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.Sikander Saiyed, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner – original accused has stated that against the cheque amount of Rs.2,50,000/-, the petitioner – original accused has paid Rs.2,30,000/- to the respondent No.2- original complainant towards full and final settlement against his claim under the cheque in question. He has also stated at the bar that the respondent No.2 – original complainant has no objection if the petitioner is permitted to compound the offence for which he has been convicted. Mr.Saiyed, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner – original accused has stated at the bar that the petitioner has also deposited Rs.37,500/- being 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, so as to enable the petitioner – accused to compound the offence for which he has been convicted. He has also submitted that the respondent No.2 – original complainant has no objection if the petitioner - original accused is permitted to compound the offence. Therefore, it is requested to permit the petitioner - original accused to compound the offence for which he has been convicted and consequently to quash and set aside the impugned Judgement and Order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court confirmed by the learned appellate court .
5. Mr.Salim Saiyed, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 – original complainant has stated at the bar under the instructions of the original complainant, who is personally present in the Court, that the original complainant has received Rs.2,30,000/- from the original accused towards full and final settlement against his claim under the cheque in question. He has also stated at the bar that the respondent No.2 – original complainant has also filed an Affidavit stating that he has received aforesaid amount of Rs.2,30,000/- in cash from the petitioner - original accused and that he has no objection if the petitioner - original accused is permitted to compound the offence for which he has been convicted.
6. Ms.Chetna Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has requested to pass appropriate order in the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. Heard Mr.Sikander Saiyed, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner – original accused, Ms.Chetna Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1 – State and Mr.Salim Saiyed, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 – original complainant at length.
8. It appears that now the parties have settled the dispute amicably and against the cheque amount of Rs.2,50,000/-, petitioner - original accused has paid Rs.2,30,000/- to the respondent No.2 – original complainant towards full and final settlement against his claim under the cheque in question, which the respondent No.2 – original complainant has accepted. It is also reported that the petitioner - original accused has also deposited Rs.37,500/- being 15% of the cheque amount 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) so as to enable the petitioner - original accused to compound the offence for which he has been convicted. An Affidavit is also filed by the respondent No.2 – original complainant stating that he has no objection if the petitioner - original accused is permitted to compound the offence for which he has been convicted.
9. Under the circumstances and considering the aforesaid taken by the respective parties and considering the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Criminal Revision Application No. 498 of 2012 is allowed and petitioner - original accused is permitted to compound the offence for which he has been convicted and consequently, the impugned judgement and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, NI Act, Court No.1, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No.767 of 2010 dtd.13/10/2011, as well as the impugned judgement and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.14, City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No.383 of 2011 dtd.21/9/2012, 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.
In view of disposal of the main Criminal Revision Application No. 498 of 2012, no order in Criminal Misc.Application No. 14520 of 2012 and the same stands disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
Direct Service is permitted.
rafik [M.R. SHAH, J.]