Gujarat High Court
Plazza Marbles And Granites Thro ... vs State Of Gujarat on 8 December, 2022
Author: Ilesh J. Vora
Bench: Ilesh J. Vora
R/CR.MA/16435/2022 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 16435 of 2022
==========================================================
PLAZZA MARBLES AND GRANITES THRO MOHAMMED ASHRAF B S/O
AM KUNHIMOOSA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HIMANISH J JAPEE(11295) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS MOXA THAKKAR, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
Date : 08/12/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. Ms.Priyanka Thakkar, learned advocate states that she has received instructions to appear for and on behalf of respondent no.2 and she shall file her Vakalatnama before the Registry. Registry is directed to accept the same.
2. Rule returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service of Rule.
3. By this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 24.06.2022 passed by the learned Page 1 of 3 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 02:16:43 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/16435/2022 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2022 Additional Civil Judge, Himmatnagar in Criminal Case No.1736 of 2018.
4. It appears that the settlement has been arrived at between the complainant and present petitioner and the entire cheque amount has been paid to the respondent no. 2, which has been confirmed by the complainant by detailed affidavit, which has been placed on record. The complainant do not wish to proceed further and is willing to compound the offence. Accordingly, the petitioner by filing this petition, seeks compounding of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
5. The petitioner also submits that the Company is willing to deposit cost as directed by the Supreme Court in case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H., reported in (2010) 5 SCC 633, with the Legal Service Authority.
6. In case of Kripalsingh Pratapsingh Vs. Salvinder Kaur Hardisingh Lohana, reported in (2004) 2 GLH 544, the coordinate Bench of this Court after considering various decisions of the Apex Court, took a view that it would be permissible for the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code, to record the settlement arrived Page 2 of 3 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 02:16:43 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/16435/2022 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2022 at between the parties and acquit the accused of the charges.
7. Thus, taking into account the fact of settlement, the compounding of the offence is hereby permitted. As a result, the petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute. The judgment order passed by the Courts below i.e. order dated 26.04.2022 passed in Criminal Case No.1736 of 2018 is hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner is acquitted of the offences under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner is directed to deposit an amount of Rs.25,000/- with the Gujarat State Legal Service Authority within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. Direct Service permitted.
(ILESH J. VORA,J) Rakesh Page 3 of 3 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 02:16:43 IST 2022