PRADIPKUMAR RASIKLAL PATELversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     R/CR.RA/1177/2026                                  ORDER DATED: 22/04/2026




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

     R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST CONVICTION -
          NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT) NO. 1177 of 2026

================================================================
                         PRADIPKUMAR RASIKLAL PATEL
                                    Versus
                           STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
RAVI B SHAH(5346) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR NIRAJ SHARMA, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
MR KK SOLANKI for MR HARDIK CHAMPAVAT for the Respondent(s) No.2
================================================================

 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
       28.06.2024 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Judicial
       Magistrate First Class, Gandhinagar in Criminal Case
       No.1232 of 2021, which was confirmed by the judgment
       and order dated 15.04.2006 passed by the learned 5 th
       Additional        Sessions   Judge,        Gandhinagar     in    Criminal
       Appeal No.226 of 2024.


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/1177/2026                                    ORDER DATED: 22/04/2026




       disputes amicably outside the Court and that there
       remains no grievance between them.                          It is further
       submitted that the applicant is in jail and therefore,
       urged this Court to exercise its discretion in favour of the
       applicant.


4.     Learned            advocate     for         respondent      no.2–original
       complainant-Mahendrakumar Ambalal Patel, Mr. K.K.
       Solanki has placed on record the affidavit of settlement
       filed by the respondent no.2–original complainant and
       stated that 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 advocates Mr. K.K Solanki
       appearing with Mr Hardik Champavat seeks permission to
       file Vakalatnama for the respondent No.2. Let the
       Vakalatnama/s 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


                                     Page 2 of 3
           R/CR.RA/1177/2026                                                          ORDER DATED: 22/04/2026




               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 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. As it is stated that the applicant is in jail,
               the applicant is ordered to be released from jail
               FORTHWITH, on following the appropriate terms
               and conditions before the concerned authority.


     7.        In view of the above, the concerned Court is directed to
               disburse the amount in connection with the present
               matter, 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.
                                                                                                          Sd/-

                                                                                                   (GITA GOPI,J)
     CAROLINE / # 46
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212), Principal pvt Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 22/04/2026 14:25:31



                                                         Page 3 of 3