HARESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI DARJIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT
- Disposal
- 38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH
- Bench
- GITA GOPI
Holding
The conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is quashed and the applicant acquitted because the offence was compounded with the complainant’s consent under Section 147.
Summary
The applicant sought revision of a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which had been affirmed by the appellate 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 gave consent to compound the offence. The court examined the object of Section 147 of the NI Act, noting its overriding effect over Section 320(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as held in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Baba Lal. On the basis of the settlement and the complainant’s consent, the court held that the offence was compounded and therefore the conviction could not stand. Consequently, the conviction and sentence were quashed, the applicant was acquitted and ordered to be released, and the complainant was directed to be paid the settled amount. The revision application was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be set aside on the ground of settlement and the complainant’s consent to compound the offence under Section 147.
- Whether Section 147 of the NI Act overrides the requirement of Section 320(1) of the CrPC in cases of compounding.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 320(1)
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881s. 138, s. 147
Subjects
Judgment
R/CR.RA/1175/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/04/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST CONVICTION -
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT) NO. 1175 of 2025
==========================================================
HARESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI DARJI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR YASH K DAVE(10269) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR YASHKUMAR J TRIVEDI(9624) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR PRANAV DHAGAT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR HS PATEL for MR. RONAK N. SHEKHALIYA(17923) for the
Respondent(s) No. 2
MR SANKET K PANDYA(9451) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 29/04/2026
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 27.7.2023 passed
by the learned 2nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deesa
in Criminal Case no. 4541/21, which was confirmed by the
judgment and order dated 2.7.2025 passed by the learned 8 th
Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Deesa in Criminal
Appeal no. 62/23.
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/1175/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/04/2026
disputes amicably outside the Court and that there remains
no grievance between them.
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.
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.
Page 2 of 3
R/CR.RA/1175/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/04/2026
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 and release from the jail
forthwith.
7. In view of the above, the concerned Court is directed to
disburse an amount of Rs.96,750/- to the complainant on
proper verification of the identity.
8. 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 29/04/2026 17:11:11
Page 3 of 3
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.