Gujarat High Court
Babubhai Adambhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat & on 31 August, 2016
Author: S.G.Shah
Bench: S.G.Shah
R/CR.RA/241/2015 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST CONVICTION -
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT) NO. 241 of 2015
==========================================================
BABUBHAI ADAMBHAI PATEL....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR P P MAJMUDAR, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR PARTHIV B SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR MANAN MEHTA, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.SHAH
Date : 31/08/2016
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. P. P. Majmudar for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr. Parthiv B. Shah for the respondent No.2 and learned APP Mr. Manan Mehta for respondent No.1.
2. Perused the record. Learned advocate Mr. Parthiv B. Shah for the original complainant confirms that parties have settled the dispute amicably outside the Court and pursuant to such settlement original complainant has received the demand draft of Rs.1,45,000/- in addition to payment received earlier and on receipt of such demand draft, complainant has agreed that they have no other complaint and they do not want to continue with this litigation and they have no objections if impugned orders are Page 1 of 2 HC-NIC Page 1 of 2 Created On Sat Sep 03 02:17:50 IST 2016 R/CR.RA/241/2015 ORDER quashed and set aside.
3. Considering the settlement between the parties when complaint is a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and when respondent complainant admits the compromise and requests to quash and set aside the impugned order, I do not see any reason to drag such proceedings since there is no reason to continue with such proceedings and to confirm the conviction because of compromise between the parties. Thereby, the impugned order dated 16.03.2015 in Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 2008 so also order of conviction dated 16.12.2007 in Criminal Case No. 629 of 2003 are hereby quashed and set aside.
4. Registry is directed to disburse the amount which may be deposited by the petitioner and stand in credit with reference to this revision, shall be disbursed with interest in favour of the respondent - original complainant.
5. Petitioner is ordered to deposit Rs.5000/- before the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority as per the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in case of Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H reported in AIR 2010 SC 1907. Disposed of accordingly. Interim relief if any shall stand vacated.
(S.G.SHAH, J.) drashti Page 2 of 2 HC-NIC Page 2 of 2 Created On Sat Sep 03 02:17:50 IST 2016