KIRITKUMAR MULSHANKAR BHATTversusSTATE OF GUJARAT
- Disposal
- 53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE
- Bench
- GITA GOPI
Holding
The conviction under Section 138 NI Act is quashed and set aside as the offence has been compounded under Section 147, overriding Section 320(1) of the CrPC.
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 a magistrate and affirmed by a sessions judge. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties settled the dispute amicably, and the original complainant consented to compound the offence under Section 147 of the NI Act, providing an affidavit confirming receipt of the agreed amount. The court examined the effect of Section 147, noting its overriding nature over Section 320(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as held in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Baba Lal. Finding that the offence was duly compounded, the court quashed the conviction and set aside the earlier orders, acquitting the applicant. Consequently, the revision application was allowed and the rule 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 under Section 147.
- Whether Section 147 of the NI Act overrides the provisions of Section 320(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in matters of compounding offences.
- 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/1129/2026 ORDER DATED: 22/04/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST CONVICTION -
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT) NO. 1129 of 2026
==========================================================
KIRITKUMAR MULSHANKAR BHATT
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DIVYA P BHATT(12898) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 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
20.12.2024 passed by the learned 6 th Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara in Criminal Case no.10281
of 2020, which was confirmed by the judgment and order
dated 31.01.2026 passed by the learned 11 th Additional
Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Criminal Appeal no.05 of
2025.
3. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that during
the pendency of the proceedings, parties have settled the
Page 1 of 3
R/CR.RA/1129/2026 ORDER DATED: 22/04/2026
disputes amicably outside the Court and that there
remains no grievance between them.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Mangal V. Gadhavi 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. Mangal
V. Gadhavi for respondent no.2. Learned advocate Mr.
Mangal V. Gadhavi 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.
Page 2 of 3
R/CR.RA/1129/2026 ORDER DATED: 22/04/2026
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 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/13
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 19:10:01
Page 3 of 3
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.