SUBHASH TEKCHAND DHOBIversusRAJUBHAI KARSHANBHAI VAGHELA

     R/CR.RA/1341/2026                                   ORDER DATED: 04/05/2026




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

     R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST CONVICTION -
          NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT) NO. 1341 of 2026

==========================================================
                       SUBHASH TEKCHAND DHOBI
                                 Versus
                  RAJUBHAI KARSHANBHAI VAGHELA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SANDIP M PATEL(5649) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR VAIBHAV A VYAS(2896) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR NIRAJ SHARMA APP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================

 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.


2.     Challenge in this Revision Application is given to the judgment
       and order of conviction and sentence dated 23.11.2022
       passed        by   the   learned     Additional    Chief     Metropolitan
       Magistrate, NI Court no.34, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case
       no.71723 of 2017, which was confirmed by the judgment and
       order dated 13.04.2026 passed by the learned Additional
       Sessions Judge, City Sessions Court No.14, Ahmedabad in
       Criminal Appeal no.459 of 2022.


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


                                    Page 1 of 3
     R/CR.RA/1341/2026                          ORDER DATED: 04/05/2026




       no grievance between them.


4.     Learned advocate Ms. A.M Panchal 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
       Ms. A.M Panchal for respondent no.2. Learned advocate Ms.
       A.M Panchal 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/1341/2026                                                    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.        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/34



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 18:38:48




                                                      Page 3 of 3