High Court of Gujarat
PANKAJKUMAR MAHENDRABHAI PATELversusSTATE OF GUJARAT
- Disposal
- 58-RULE ISSUED & RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @FH
- Bench
- GITA GOPI
Holding
The conviction under Section 138 NI Act was quashed because the offence was compounded with the complainant's consent under Section 147, which prevails over Section 320(1) CrPC.
Summary
The petitioner filed a criminal revision seeking relief from a conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, originally imposed in 2018 and affirmed by an appellate court in 2026. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties settled the dispute amicably, and the original complainant executed an affidavit confirming receipt of the agreed amount and consented to compound the offence. The court examined the provisions of Section 147 of the NI Act, which allows compounding with the aggrieved's consent, and held that it overrides the requirement of Section 320(1) of the CrPC as per the precedent set in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Baba Lal. Accordingly, the conviction was quashed and the petitioner was acquitted. The revision application was allowed, and the rule of service 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 NI Act overrides the requirement of Section 320(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in cases of compounding.
- The effect of an affidavit of settlement on the continuation of criminal proceedings.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 320
- Negotiable Instruments Acts. 138, s. 147
Subjects
Negotiable Instruments ActSection 138Section 147Compounding of offenceCriminal revisionAmicable settlementAcquittalCrPC Section 320
Judgment
R/CR.RA/718/2026 ORDER DATED: 13/03/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST CONVICTION -
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT) NO. 718 of 2026
==========================================================
PANKAJKUMAR MAHENDRABHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. MAULIK M SONI(7249) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR BHARGAV PANDYA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS HONEY RAVAL for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 13/03/2026
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 26.9.2018 passed
by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge & Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Olpad in Criminal Case no.676/2016,
which was confirmed by the judgment and order dated
1.1.2026 passed by the learned 10th Additional Sessions
Judge, Surat in Criminal Appeal no.252/2018.
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/718/2026 ORDER DATED: 13/03/2026
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 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/718/2026 ORDER DATED: 13/03/2026
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. 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 13/03/2026 16:22:46
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