[1.0] RULE. Shri Kirit Patel, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No.2 and Ms. C.M. Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No.1. 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 applicant herein – original accused has already deposited the entire cheque amount i.e. Rs.50,000/ with the Registry of this Court and as the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties have requested to permit the applicant to compound the offence for which he has been convicted, present Revision Application is taken up for final hearing today. [2.0] Present Criminal Revision Application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred by the applicant herein – original accused to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 12.05.2011 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act), Court No.1, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No.2963 of 2008, by which the applicant herein – original accused has been convicted for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 for dishonour of the cheque of Rs.50,000/ as well as the impugned judgment and order dated 10.10.2012 passed by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No.234 of 2011 by which the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the said Appeal preferred by the applicant herein – original 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 final hearing, Shri Devang Joshi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant has stated at the Bar that applicant – original accused has already deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/ with the Registry of this Court being the cheque amount which may be permitted to be withdrawn by respondent No.2 – original complainant. He has also stated at the Bar that parties have settled the dispute amicably and on permitting the original complainant to withdraw the aforesaid amount, the original complainant has no objection if the applicant is permitted to compound the offence for which he has been convicted. He has also stated at the Bar that the applicant has also deposited 15% of the cheque amount i.e. Rs.7,500/ with the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority which the applicant is required to deposit in view of 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 applicant herein – original accused to compound the offence for which he has been convicted. Therefore, it is requested to permit the applicant – original accused to compound the offence for which he has been convicted and consequently quash and set aside the impugned judgment and orders.
[4.0] Shri Kirit Patel, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of respondent No.2 – original complainant. He has stated at the Bar, under the instruction from respondent No.2 – original complainant, who is personally present in the Court that on permitting the original complainant to withdraw the amount of Rs.50,000/ which the applicant has deposited, he has no objection if the applicant is permitted to compound the offence for which he has been convicted. He has also produced on record the affidavit affirmed by the original complainant submitting accordingly.
[4.1] Ms. C.M. Shah, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State has requested to pass appropriate order in the facts and circumstances of the case.
[5.0] Heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties. It is reported that now the applicant – original accused has already deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/ with the Registry of this Court towards the cheque amount. It is also reported that the applicant has also deposited 15% of the cheque amount i.e. Rs.7,500/ with the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority, which the applicant is required to deposit in view of 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 original complainant has no objection if the applicant is permitted to compound the offence for which he has been convicted on permitting the original complainant to withdraw the amount of Rs.50,000/, which the applicant has deposited with the Registry of this Court towards the cheque amount. Thus, it appears that the parties have settled the dispute amicably and the original complainant has no objection if the applicant is permitted to compound the offence for which he has been convicted. Under the circumstances, applicant is permitted to compound the offence for which he has been convicted. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 12.05.2011 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act), Court No.1, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No.2963 of 2008 as well as the judgment and order dated 10.10.2012 passed by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No.234 of 2011 are hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, if the applicant herein – original accused is in jail, he shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
[5.1] Registry is hereby directed to pay Rs.50,000/ deposited by the applicant herein with the Registry of this Court in the present proceedings to respondent No.2 herein – original complainant by Account Payee Cheque at the earliest / forthwith on proper identification and verification. Direct service is permitted TODAY.
(M. R. Shah, J.) Menon