RAMESH MANGALBHAI PATELversusSTATE OF GUJARAT
- Disposal
- 58-RULE ISSUED & RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @FH
- Bench
- GITA GOPI
Holding
The conviction under Section 138 NI Act was quashed and the applicant acquitted because the offence was compounded with the complainant's consent under Section 147, which prevails over CrPC Section 320(1).
Summary
The applicant filed a criminal revision seeking relief from a conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, originally imposed by the 11th Additional Judicial Magistrate and affirmed by the 11th Additional Sessions Judge. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties settled the dispute amicably, and the original 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(1) of the CrPC, as affirmed in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Baba Lal. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence were quashed, and the applicant was acquitted. The revision application was therefore allowed, and the rule was made absolute with permission for direct service.
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 permitting compounding of the offence.
- Whether the consent of the aggrieved party is sufficient to effect compounding and lead to acquittal of the accused.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 320(1)
- Negotiable Instruments Acts. 138, s. 147
Subjects
Judgment
R/CR.RA/1083/2026 ORDER DATED: 22/04/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST CONVICTION -
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT) NO. 1083 of 2026
==========================================================
RAMESH MANGALBHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ISHAN H RAJDEV(11634) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR NIRAJ SHARMA APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 22/04/2026
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 13.06.2025
passed by the learned 11th Additional Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Criminal Case no.8103 of 2023,
which was confirmed by the judgment and order dated
11.03.2026 passed by the learned 11 th Additional Sessions
Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Criminal Appeal no.247 of 2025.
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/1083/2026 ORDER DATED: 22/04/2026
4. Learned advocate Mr. Saif Kavla 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
Mr. Saif Kavla for respondent no.2. Learned advocate Mr. Saif
Kavla 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.
Page 2 of 3
R/CR.RA/1083/2026 ORDER DATED: 22/04/2026
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/94
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 22/04/2026 19:17:28
Page 3 of 3
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.