SUBHASH TEKCHAND DHOBIversusRAJUBHAI KARSHANBHAI VAGHELA
- Disposal
- 38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH
- Bench
- GITA GOPI
Holding
The conviction under Section 138 NI Act was quashed and the applicant acquitted as the offence was compounded with the complainant's consent.
Summary
The applicant filed a criminal revision seeking relief from a conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which had been affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge. During the pendency of the proceedings the parties settled the dispute amicably, and the complainant consented to compound the offence under Section 147 of the NI Act, providing an affidavit confirming receipt of the agreed amount. The court examined the object of Section 147, noting its overriding effect over Section 320(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as held in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Baba Lal. Considering the settlement and the complainant’s consent, the court held that the offence could be compounded and therefore set aside the conviction. Consequently, the judgment and order of conviction were quashed, the applicant was acquitted, and the revision application was 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 the complainant's consent to compound the offence under Section 147.
- Whether Section 147 of the NI Act overrides the requirement of Section 320(1) of the CrPC in the context of compounding.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 320(1)
- Negotiable Instruments Acts. 138, s. 147
Subjects
Judgment
R/CR.RA/1342/2026 ORDER DATED: 04/05/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST CONVICTION -
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT) NO. 1342 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.59189 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.460 of 2022.
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/1342/2026 ORDER DATED: 04/05/2026
disputes amicably outside the Court and that there remains
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
Page 2 of 3
R/CR.RA/1342/2026 ORDER DATED: 04/05/2026
considered as compounded.
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/35
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 18:39:09
Page 3 of 3
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.