High Court of Gujarat
BALVANTJI CHAMANJI THAKORversusSTATE OF GUJARAT
- Disposal
- 38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH
- Bench
- GITA GOPI
Holding
The conviction under Section 138 NI Act was quashed and the applicant was acquitted on the ground of valid compounding of the offense with the complainant's consent.
Summary
The applicant, Balvantji Chamanji Thakor, was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the 6th Additional Civil Judge, Mahesana, and the conviction was affirmed by the Sessions Judge. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties settled the dispute amicably, and the original complainant, represented by Ms. Avani V. Patel, consented to compound the offense under Section 147 of the NI Act, providing an affidavit of settlement and a No Due Certificate. The High Court considered the object of Section 147, which allows compounding with the aggrieved's consent, and the overriding effect of Section 320(1) of the CrPC as interpreted in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Baba Lal. Consequently, the Court quashed the conviction and set aside the sentence, acquitting the applicant. The revision application was therefore allowed.
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 compounding of the offense under Section 147 with the complainant's consent.
- Whether the provisions of Section 147 NI Act override Section 320(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the context of compounding.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 320(1)
- Negotiable Instruments Acts. 138, s. 147
Subjects
Negotiable Instruments ActSection 138Section 147Compounding of offenseCriminal revisionAcquittalSection 320 CrPCSettlement
Judgment
R/CR.RA/1267/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST CONVICTION -
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT) NO. 1267 of 2026
================================================================
BALVANTJI CHAMANJI THAKOR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR BS KHATANA(3671) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR VIRAJ B KHATANA(10416) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR PRANAV DHAGAT, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 27/04/2026
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 08.05.2025
passed by the learned 6th Additional Civil Judge, Mahesana in
Criminal Case No.4502 of 2024, which was con昀椀rmed by the
judgment and order dated 22.09.2025 passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Mahesana in Criminal Appeal No.352 of 2025.
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/1267/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026
4. Learned advocate for respondent no.2–original complainant
Ms. Avani V. Patel has placed on record the a昀케davit of
settlement 昀椀led by the respondent no.2–original complainant
and stated that the complainant-Kogta Financial (India)
Limited 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 o昀昀ence. The same is taken on
record. Today, the representative of the respondent no.2 is
present before this Court and the representative has a昀케rmed
the contents of the a昀케davit and is identi昀椀ed by learned
advocate for respondent no.2. It is further submitted that ‘No
Due Certi昀椀cate’ has also been issued. Learned advocate Ms.
Avani V. Patel seeks permission to 昀椀le Vakalatnama. Let
Vakalatnama be accepted.
5. Since the complainant has given consent for compounding the
o昀昀ence, keeping in mind the object of Section 147 of the NI
Act, which is an enabling provision which provides for
compounding the o昀昀ence and may require the consent of the
aggrieved for compounding the o昀昀ence, however, the speci昀椀c
provision under Section 147, inserted by way of amendment
towards special law, would give overriding e昀昀ect 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 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/1267/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026
6. In aforesaid view of the matter, the judgment and order
passed by the learned Trial Court of conviction and sentence
for the o昀昀ence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act, as
a昀케rmed 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.
Sd/-
(GITA GOPI,J)
CAROLINE
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212), Principal pvt Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 27/04/2026 18:22:39
Page 3 of 3
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Negotiable Instruments Act"Sign in to search