High Court of Gujarat
KALUSINH VAKTUSINH MAKVANAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT
- Disposal
- 47-DISPOSAL IN ANY OTHER MODE FH
- Bench
- GITA GOPI
Holding
The conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was quashed because the offence was validly compounded with the complainant's consent under Section 147, which overrides the procedural requirement of Section 320(1) of the CrPC.
Summary
Kalusinh Vaktusinh Makvana was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by a Judicial Magistrate and the conviction was affirmed by the Sessions 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, having received the agreed amount. The court examined the effect of Section 147, noting that it overrides the requirement of Section 320(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as held in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Baba Lal. On this basis, the High Court quashed the conviction and sentence, acquitted the applicant and ordered his immediate release. The revision application was therefore allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be set aside when the offence is compounded with the complainant's consent under Section 147.
- Whether Section 147 of the NI Act has overriding effect over Section 320(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in matters of compounding offences.
- Whether an amicable settlement extinguishes criminal liability for a cheque bounce offence.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 320(1)
- Negotiable Instruments Acts. 138, s. 147
Subjects
Negotiable Instruments ActSection 138Section 147Compounding of offencesCriminal revisionSettlementAcquittal
Judgment
R/CR.RA/645/2026 ORDER DATED: 12/03/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST CONVICTION -
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT) NO. 645 of 2026
================================================================
KALUSINH VAKTUSINH MAKVANA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR PIYUSH B TRIVEDI(12401) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR BHARGAV PANDYA, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
MR RAVI MANDALIYA for the Respondent(s) No.2
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 12/03/2026
ORAL 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
31.01.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Talod in Criminal Case No.211 of 2024, which
was confirmed by the judgment and order dated
18.07.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge,
Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar in Criminal Misc. (Delay
Condone) Application No.418 of 2025.
3. Learned advocate for the applicant Mr. Piyush B. Trivedi
submitted that during the pendency of the proceedings,
Page 1 of 3
R/CR.RA/645/2026 ORDER DATED: 12/03/2026
parties have settled the disputes amicably outside the
Court and that there remains no grievance between
them.
4. Learned advocate for respondent no.2–original
complainant Mr. Ravi Mandaliya has placed on record the
afÏdavit 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, the respondent no.2 is present before this Court
and the respondent no.2 has afÏrmed the contents of the
afÏdavit and is identified by learned advocate for
respondent no.2. Learned advocate Mr. Ravi Mandaliya
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
Page 2 of 3
R/CR.RA/645/2026 ORDER DATED: 12/03/2026
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.
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 afÏrmed by the learned Appellate Court,
are quashed and set aside. The applicant stands
acquitted and be released forthwith.
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 / DB # 100
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 12/03/2026 18:28:54
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