RAMESHBHAI CHAMANLAL MOLIYAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT
- Disposal
- 38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ 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 prevails over Section 320(1) of the CrPC.
Summary
The petitioner, Rameshbhai Chamanlal Moliya, filed a criminal revision seeking relief from a conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, originally imposed by a magistrate and affirmed by a Sessions Court. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties settled the dispute amicably, and the complainant executed an affidavit confirming receipt of the agreed amount and consented to compound the offence under Section 147 of the NI Act. The court noted that Section 147, as amended, gives overriding effect to Section 320(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, allowing compounding with the aggrieved's consent. Relying on this provision and the precedent of Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Baba Lal, the High Court quashed the conviction and ordered the petitioner’s immediate release. The revision application was therefore allowed, and the judgment of conviction set aside.
Issues considered
- Whether a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be set aside on the ground of settlement and compounding of the offence with the complainant's consent.
- 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.
- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to quash a conviction that has been affirmed by an appellate court on the basis of a subsequent settlement.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 320(1)
- Negotiable Instruments Acts. 138, s. 147
Subjects
Judgment
R/CR.RA/968/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST CONVICTION -
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT) NO. 968 of 2025
==========================================================
RAMESHBHAI CHAMANLAL MOLIYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HIRENKUMAR M NIYALCHANDANI(9959) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR SHATRUGHN SONI for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR NIRAJ SHARMA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 06/05/2026
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 27.3.2024 passed
by the learned 2nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot
in Criminal Case no.9745/20 , which was confirmed by the
judgment and order dated 24.3.2025 passed by the learned
7th Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot in Criminal Appeal
no.282/24.
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/968/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026
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 virtually 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/968/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026
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 and be released from
the jail forthwith.
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 06/05/2026 17:22:45
Page 3 of 3
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.