CR.RA/224/2008 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 224 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No. 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? No. 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? No. 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? No. ========================================================= HARPALSINH MOHANSINH ZALA - Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR YOGESH S LAKHANI FOR MR ASHISH M DAGLI for Applicant(s) : 1, MRS FD PATEL APP for Respondent(s) : 1, None for Respondent(s) : 2, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA Date : 28/03/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Learned A.P.P. Mrs. F.D. Patel waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No. 1. CR.RA/224/2008 2/4 JUDGMENT 2. With the consent of the learned advocates for the parties, this application is taken up for final hearing today as the offence has been compounded. 3. Learned advocate Mr. Lakhani for learned Mr. A.M. Dagli for the petitioner states that the the respondent No. 2 - original complainant has compounded the offence. 4. The complainant – Chetansinh Ghumansinh Vaghela has filed affidavit dated 26-8-2008 stating that the offence has been compounded and he has received the amount of cheque towards full and final settlement of the claim. The said affidavit is ordered to be taken on record. 5. Respondent No. 2 - original complainant is personally present in the court and admits having sworn the affidavit. Learned advocate Mr. V.J. Jebliya who represented the complainant in the trial court is also personally present in the court and has identified the complainant – respondent No. 2. 6. It appears from the affidavit that the original complainant - respondent No. 2 has CR.RA/224/2008 3/4 JUDGMENT received the amount of cheque as full and final settlement of claim towards the cheque in question. It also indicates that the parties have compounded the offence and therefore the judgment of the trial court and confirmed by the lower appellate court is required to be quashed and set aside. 7. The respondent No.2 – original complainant admits having sworn the affidavit. He stated that he has settled the dispute as per the affidavit and has compounded the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act therefore the impugned judgment passed by the trial court and confirmed by the lower appellate court is required to be quashed and set aside. 8. In view of above, it appears that the respondent No. 2 original complainant has compounded the offence without any fear, coercion, threat or undue influence. 9, It is stated that Non-bailable Warrant is issued against the petitioner by learned Addl. Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, 2nd Fast Track Court, Ahmedabad (Rural), Mirzapur, Ahmedabad and hence it is required to be quashed and set aside. CR.RA/224/2008 4/4 JUDGMENT 10. In view of compounding of the offence by the parties, judgment and order dated 16-3-2007 passed by learned 6th Addl. Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Ahmedabad (Rural), Mirzapur, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No. 7143 of 2003 and confirmed by the judgment and order dated 11-3-2008 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, 2nd Fast Track Court, Ahmedabad (Rural), Mirzapur, Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2007 is quashed and set aside and the petitioner is acquitted for the offence charged against him. Non-bailable Warrant issued against the petitioner by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, and Presiding Officer, 2nd Fast Track Court, Ahmedabad (Rural), Mirzapur, Ahmedabad is quashed and set aside. The amount of fine of Rs.5000/- paid by the petitioner is ordered to be returned to him after due verification. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. (Bankim N. Mehta, J.) /JVSatwara/