1.0 Present Criminal Revision Application under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the petitioner to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 6.1.2011 passed by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No.13, Ahmedabad passed in Criminal Appeal No.53 of 2010, by which, the learned Appellate Court has partly allowed the said appeal preferred by the respondent no.2 hereinoriginal accused and has quashed and set aside the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad dated 18.1.2010 passed in Criminal Case No. 2616 of 2008 and has remanded the matter to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate to decide the said criminl case afresh and after recording the plea of the accused afresh.
2.0 That the respondent no.2 herein original accused was convicted by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad vide judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 18.1.2010 passed in Criminal Case No.2616 of 2008 for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.
2.1. That being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate passed in Criminal Case No.2616 of 2008, respondent no.2 herein original accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.53 of 2010 before the City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad and by impugned judgment and order the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No.13, Ahmedabad has allowed the said appeal by quashing and setting the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate passed in Criminal Case No.2616 of 2008 and remanding the matter to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate to record the plea of the accused afresh and thereafter to decide and dispose of the said criminal case afresh in accordance with law and on merits.
2.2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Court in quashing and setting aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and remanding the matter to the learned trial Court, the petitioner herein original complainant has preferred present Criminal Revision Application.
3.0 The present Criminal Revision Application was heard at length by this Court and the learned advocate for the respondent no.2 original accused stated at the bar that original accused is ready and willing to pay entire cheque amount i.e. Rs. 25 lacs to the petitioner hereinoriginal complainant and is also ready and willing to pay 15% of the cheque amount while praying to compound the offence for which he has been prosecuted for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and therefore, the matter was adjourned.
4.0 Today, when the present Criminal Revision Application is taken up for further hearing, Shri Popat, learned advocate for the respondent no.2 has stated at the bar that respondent no.2 herein original accused has paid entire cheque amount i.e. Rs.25 lacs towards full and final settlement of the claim of the petitioner under the cheque which has been dishonoured and for which the accused is facing prosecution for the offences under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. He has also stated at the bar that respondent no.2 has also deposited 15% of the cheque amount i.e. 3,75,000/ with the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority, which accused is required to deposit 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, which the accused is required to deposit while requesting for permitting the accused to compound the offence. Shri Popat, learned advocate for the respondent no.2 original accused has therefore, requested to permit the respondnet no.2 original accused to compound the offence for which he has been prosecuted for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
5.0 Shri Desai, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the petitioner hereinoriginal complainant. He has confirmed that the respondent no.2 hereinoriginal accused has paid Rs.25 lacs towards entire cheque amount to the complainant and thus entire cheque amount has been paid to the petitioner original complainant. He has stated at the bar that therefore, he has no objection if the respondent no.2 original accused is permitted to compound the offence for which he is being prosecuted for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
6.0 Ms. Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has requested to pass appropriate order in view of above settlement between the parties.
7.0 Heard Shri Anshin Desai learned advocate for the petitioneroriginal complainant and Shri Virat Popat, learned advocate for the original accused and Ms. Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State. At the outset, it is required to be noted that respondent no.2 hereinoriginal accused was convicted by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate by judgment and order passed in Criminal Case No.261 of 2008, for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act for dishonour of the cheque of Rs.25 lacs. That by impugned judgment and order, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has been set aside by the learned Appellate Court and the learned Appellate Court has remanded the matter to the Metropolitan Magistrate. It is reported that now the parties have settled the dispute amicably and the entire cheque amount i.e. Rs.25 lacs is paid to the petitioner original complainant. It is also reported that respondent no.2 hereinoriginal accused has also deposited 15% of the cheque amount i.e. Rs.3,75,000/ with the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority which the accused is required to deposit in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu (Supra). It is also reported that the petitioner original complainant has no objection if the respondent no.2 original accused is permitted to compound the offence for which he has been prosecuted in Criminal Case No.2616 of 2008. In view of the above and to put an end to the litigation, the respondent no.2 hereinoriginal accused can be permitted to compound the offence for which he is being prosecuted before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in Criminal Case No. 2616 of 2008.
8.0 Under the circumstances, present Criminal Revision Application is disposed of by permitting the respondent no.2 herein original accused to compound the offence for which he is being prosecuted by way of Criminal Case No.2616 of 2008 pending in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate (Negotiable Instruments) Court, No. 3, Ahmedabad. Under the circumstances, respondent no.2 hereinoriginal accused is not to be further tried for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act for dishonour of cheque for which he was being prosecuted in Criminal Case No.2616 of 2008 pending in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate (Negotiable Instruments) Court, No. 3, Ahmedabad which has been remanded to the learned trial Court pursuant to the order passed by the learned Appellate Court and the same stands disposed of accordingly. Either of the parties to place present order before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate to pass formal order of disposing of the said Criminal Case and to pass formal order by the Metropolitan Magistrate disposing of the aforesaid Criminal Case. Present Criminal Revision Application stands disposed of accordingly. Direct service is permitted.
“kaushik”
sd/ ( M. R. Shah, J. )