High Court of Gujarat
JAVEDKHAN JITENDRABHAI VAGHELAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT
- Disposal
- 38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH
- Bench
- GITA GOPI
Holding
The conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was quashed and the accused acquitted because the offence was compounded with the complainant's consent under Section 147, which prevails over CrPC Section 320(1).
Summary
The applicant filed a criminal revision against a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which had been affirmed by the appellate court. During the pendency of the proceedings the parties settled the dispute amicably, and the complainant gave consent to compound the offence under Section 147 of the NI Act. The court accepted the complainant's affidavit of settlement and noted that Section 147 overrides the requirement of Section 320(1) of the CrPC. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence were quashed and the applicant was acquitted. The court also ordered the return of Rs.75,000 deposited by the accused, subject to verification.
Issues considered
- Whether a conviction under Section 138 NI Act can be set aside on the basis of an amicable settlement and compounding of the offence with the complainant's consent.
- Whether Section 147 of the NI Act overrides Section 320(1) of the CrPC in permitting compounding of the offence.
- Whether the appellate court's affirmation of the conviction can be revisited in light of the settlement.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 320
- Negotiable Instruments Acts. 138, s. 147
Subjects
Negotiable Instruments ActSection 138Section 147Compounding of offencesCriminal revisionAcquittalSettlementCrPC Section 320
Judgment
R/CR.RA/1338/2026 ORDER DATED: 04/05/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST CONVICTION -
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT) NO. 1338 of 2026
==========================================================
JAVEDKHAN JITENDRABHAI VAGHELA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS BENAZIR M HAKIM(5166) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR NIRAJ SHARMA APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 04/05/2026
ORDER
1. RULE. Learned advocates waive service of Rule on behalf of
the respective respondents.
1.1 Draft amendment allowed with regard to the name of
respondent no.2 – the original complainant.
2. Challenge in this Revision Application is given to the judgment
and order of conviction and sentence dated 27.01.2025
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Matar in
Criminal Case no.186 of 2024, which was confirmed by the
judgment and order dated 01.04.2026 passed by the learned
6th Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiad in Criminal Appeal
no.205 of 2025.
3. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that during the
pendency of the proceedings, parties have settled the
Page 1 of 3
R/CR.RA/1338/2026 ORDER DATED: 04/05/2026
disputes amicably outside the Court and that there remains
no grievance between them.
4. Learned advocate Mr. A.M Tai 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 Mr. A.M
Tai for respondent no.2. Learned advocate Mr. A.M Tai 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 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/1338/2026 ORDER DATED: 04/05/2026
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. It is submitted that an amount of Rs.75,000/- has been
deposited by the accused. In view of the settlement arrived at
and as admitted by the complainant, the concerned Court is
directed to disburse an amount of Rs.75,000/- be paid to the
accused on proper verification of the identity.
8. 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)
PARMAR KRISH/53
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: PARMAR KRISH(HC02348), ENGLISH STENO GRADE-II\, at High Court of Gujarat on 04/05/2026 18:38:00
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