DAKSHESH RAMNIKBHAI PATELversusSTATE OF GUJARAT
- Disposal
- 56-DISPOSED AT ADMISSION STAGE
- Bench
- GITA GOPI
Holding
The conviction under Section 138 NI Act was quashed and the petitioner acquitted because the offence was compounded with the complainant's consent under Section 147, which prevails over CrPC provisions.
Summary
The petitioner, Dakshesh Ramnikbhai Patel, 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 appellate court. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties settled the dispute amicably, and the complainant consented to compound the offence, filing an affidavit of settlement. The court considered the object of Section 147 of the NI Act, which allows compounding with the aggrieved's consent and overrides Section 320 of the CrPC, as held in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Baba Lal. Accordingly, the conviction was quashed, the petitioner was acquitted, and the court ordered the return of Rs.90,000 deposited by the accused. 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 Negotiable Instruments Act overrides the provisions of Section 320(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in matters of compounding offences.
- Whether the court may order restitution of the amount deposited by the accused following the compounding of the offence.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 320(1)
- Negotiable Instruments Acts. 138, s. 147
Subjects
Judgment
R/CR.RA/428/2026 ORDER DATED: 20/04/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST CONVICTION -
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT) NO. 428 of 2026
==========================================================
DAKSHESH RAMNIKBHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MOHDDANISH M BAREJIA(10612) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS ASMITA PATEL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR MS SHAIKH for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 20/04/2026
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 12.3.2025 passed
by the learned JMFC, Surat in Criminal Case no. 56831/22,
which was confirmed by the judgment and order dated
3.1.2026 passed by the learned 15th Additional Sessions
Judge, Surat in Criminal Appeal no. 305/25.
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/428/2026 ORDER DATED: 20/04/2026
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.
6. In aforesaid view of the matter, the judgment and order
passed by the learned Trial Court of conviction and sentence
Page 2 of 3
R/CR.RA/428/2026 ORDER DATED: 20/04/2026
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.90,000/- 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.90,000/- be paid to the
accused – Dakshesh Ramnikbhai Patel 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)
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 20/04/2026 17:39:25
Page 3 of 3
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.