High Court of Gujarat
PATEL VINODBHAI KANTILALversusSTATE OF GUJARAT
- Disposal
- 38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH
- Bench
- HASMUKH D SUTHAR
Holding
The revision application is disposed of; the earlier judgments are quashed, subject to the applicant depositing Rs 10,000 as costs.
Summary
The applicant, Patel Vinodbhai Kantilal, filed a criminal revision under Sections 397 and 401 of the CrPC seeking to set aside his conviction under the Negotiable Instruments Act, alleging that the dispute had been amicably settled. The State opposed the application, citing the seriousness of the offence, but the complainant (respondent No.2) admitted the settlement and raised no objection. The Court noted that the offence is compoundable under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and, relying on precedent, allowed the settlement to be effected at this stage, subject to a cost order. Consequently, the Court quashed the earlier judgments dated 04‑11‑2023 and 19‑10‑2022, ordered the applicant to deposit Rs 10,000 as costs, discharged his bail bond, and directed his release from custody. The revision application was therefore disposed of, with the earlier convictions set aside subject to the cost condition.
Issues considered
- Whether a conviction under the Negotiable Instruments Act can be quashed on the basis of a settlement of a compoundable offence.
- Whether the Court has jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of the CrPC to set aside the earlier judgments.
- Whether the applicant should be ordered to pay costs despite the settlement.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedures. 397, s. 401
- Negotiable Instruments Acts. 147
Subjects
revisioncompoundable offenceNegotiable Instruments Actsettlementquash convictioncost orderbail discharge
Judgment
R/CR.RA/1481/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST CONVICTION -
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT) NO. 1481 of 2023
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
============================================
PATEL VINODBHAI KANTILAL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
============================================
Appearance:
MR. RAJKUMAR N DAVE(14054) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS UNNATI V PAREKH(12781) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ROHAN H. RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 29/04/2026
JUDGMENT
1) By way of the present revision application filed under Sections
397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant
has sought the following relief:
“(B) THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO suspend
the sentence in connection with the judgment and order
dated 04.11.2023 passed by the Learned 5 th Additional
Sessions Judge At Mahesana in Criminal Appeal no.330
of 2022 and the Judgment and order dated 19.10.2022
passed by Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate
Mahesana in criminal case no.913 of 2018 are illegal,
unjust, unlawful, unjustifiable and improper, the same
are required to be quash and set aside.”
Page 1 of 4
R/CR.RA/1481/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
2) Learned advocate for the applicant has taken this Court through
the factual matrix of the present application. At the outset, it is
submitted that the parties have amicably resolved the dispute. It
is further submitted that in view of settlement arrived at
between the parties, present application deserves consideration.
3) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has
opposed the present application and submitted that considering
the seriousness of the offence, the present application may not
be entertained.
4) The respondent No.2 – Patel Tejendrabhai harshadbhai,
appeared through his Power of Attorney and virtual mode before
this Court and admitted the factum of settlement and has no
objection if the present application is allowed.
5) In view of the above, it appears that during the pendency of the
present application the matter has been amicably settled
between the parties. Having heard the learned advocates for the
respective parties and considering the material placed on record,
it appears that the dispute between the parties has now been
amicably resolved. The complainant has admitted the factum of
settlement and has no objection if the complaint is quashed.
Therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by continuing the
proceedings further.
Page 2 of 4
R/CR.RA/1481/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
6) Considering the fact that the dispute is settled between the
parties and as offence is compoundable one at any stage under
Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, application
deserves consideration. But, as the applicant – accused has
settled the dispute at belated stage before this Court, in view of
the decision rendered in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs.
Sayed Babalal H, reported in 2010(5) SCC 663, as well as in
view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjabij
Tari vs. Kishore S Boarcar & Anr. reported in 2025 INSC
1158, applicant – accused is required to be saddled with cost.
Therefore, considering the relationship between both the parties
the applicant - accused is required to deposit token amount of
Rs.10,000/- as costs. Accordingly, the applicant – accused is
directed to deposit Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with the
Gujarat State Legal Services Authority, within a period of one
week from today.
7) Resultantly, the present Revision Application stands disposed of
in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties. The
judgment and order dated 04.11.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal
No.330 of 2022 by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge,
Mahesana, as well as the judgment and order dated 19.10.2022
passed in Criminal Case No.913 of 2018 by the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kadi, are hereby quashed
Page 3 of 4
R/CR.RA/1481/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
and set aside, along with all consequential proceedings arising
therefrom qua the present applicant subject to aforesaid
condition. Bail bond of the applicant – accused stands
discharged.
8) The Registry is directed to release the amount, if any, lying with
it in favour of the respondent No.2 – original complainant.
9) The Jail Authority concerned is directed to release the applicant
forthwith, if not required in connection with any other offence.
10) The complainant – respondent no.2 is directed to place on record
original copy of Power of Attorney after following due process of
law.
11) Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent only. Interim
application, if any, also stands disposed of. Direct service is
permitted.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ANKIT JANSARI
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE I, at High Court of Gujarat on 29/04/2026 16:49:34
Page 4 of 4
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "revision"Sign in to search