AMIT CHANDRAKANT PATELversusSTATE OF GUJARAT
- Disposal
- 56-DISPOSED AT ADMISSION STAGE
- Bench
- GITA GOPI
Holding
The conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was quashed as the offence was compounded with the complainant's consent, in accordance with Section 147 of the NI Act.
Summary
The petitioner filed a criminal revision application challenging his conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which had been affirmed by the Sessions Court. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties settled the dispute amicably, and the complainant executed an affidavit confirming receipt of the agreed amount and consented to compound the offence. The court accepted the affidavit, noted that Section 147 of the NI Act, as interpreted in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Baba Lal, gives overriding effect to Section 320(1) of the CrPC, and held that the offence could be compounded with the aggrieved's consent. Consequently, the conviction and sentence were quashed and the petitioner was acquitted. The revision application was allowed and the rule was made absolute.
Issues considered
- Whether a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be set aside on the basis of an amicable settlement and the complainant's consent to compound the offence.
- Whether Section 147 of the NI Act overrides the provisions of Section 320(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in matters of compounding offences.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 320(1)
- Negotiable Instruments Acts. 138, s. 147
Subjects
Judgment
R/CR.RA/1162/2026 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST CONVICTION -
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT) NO. 1162 of 2026
==========================================================
AMIT CHANDRAKANT PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MAYUR DHOTARE for MR MITESH S CHAROLIYA(19058) for the
Applicant(s) No. 1
MR PRANAV DHAGAT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR APURVA UPADHYAY for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 23/04/2026
ORDER
1. RULE. Learned advocates waive service of Rule on behalf of
the respective respondents.
2. Challenge in this Revision Application is given to the judgment
and order of conviction and sentence dated 31.8.2023 passed
by the learned 17th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Vadodara in Criminal Case no. 6865/19, which was confirmed
by the judgment and order dated 15.11.2025 passed by the
learned 12th Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Criminal
Appeal no. 520/23.
3. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that during the
pendency of the proceedings, parties have settled the
disputes amicably outside the Court and that there remains
no grievance between them.
Page 1 of 3
R/CR.RA/1162/2026 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2026
4. Learned advocate for respondent no.2 – original complainant
has placed on record the affidavit of settlement filed by the
respondent no.2–original complainant and stated that the
complainant has received the amount as agreed between the
parties and the complainant does not want to pursue the
matter now in view of amicable settlement and has given
consent for compounding the offence. The same is taken on
record. Today, respondent no.2 is present before this Court
and the respondent no.2 has affirmed the contents of the
affidavit and is identified by learned advocate for respondent
no.2. Learned advocate seeks permission to file Vakalatnama.
Let Vakalatnama be accepted.
5. Since the complainant has given consent for compounding the
offence, keeping in mind the object of Section 147 of the NI
Act, which is an enabling provision which provides for
compounding the offence and may require the consent of the
aggrieved for compounding the offence, however, the specific
provision under Section 147, inserted by way of amendment
towards special law, would give overriding effect to sub-
section (1) of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 as has been observed in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu
v. Sayed Baba Lal, AIR 2010 SC 1907. Accordingly, as the
dispute has been resolved and the entire amount has been
paid to the complainant, in consonance with the object of the
N.I. Act and the provisions under Section 147 thereof, the
matter is considered as compounded.
Page 2 of 3
R/CR.RA/1162/2026 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2026
6. In aforesaid view of the matter, the judgment and order
passed by the learned Trial Court of conviction and sentence
for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act, as
affirmed by the learned Appellate Court, are quashed and set
aside. The applicant stands acquitted.
7. Accordingly, the present application is allowed in the above
terms. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct
service is permitted.
(GITA GOPI,J)
Maulik
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: MAULIK RAJESH PANDYA(HC00205), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 23/04/2026 14:21:22
Page 3 of 3
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.