SADIK INAYAT HUSEN SHAIKHversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     R/CR.RA/237/2026                            ORDER DATED: 05/05/2026




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

     R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST CONVICTION -
          NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT) NO. 237 of 2026

==========================================================
                        SADIK INAYAT HUSEN SHAIKH
                                  Versus
                         STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MUNJAL V ACHARYA(10678) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR PRANAV DHAGAT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR HB CHAMPAVAT for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI

                             Date : 05/05/2026

                                 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 21.9.2024 passed
       by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat in
       Criminal Case no. 10042/20, which was confirmed by the
       judgment and order dated 22.12.2025 passed by the learned
       Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in Criminal Appeal no.
       823/24.


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/237/2026                          ORDER DATED: 05/05/2026




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. Learned advocate 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 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.


6.     In aforesaid view of the matter, the judgment and order
       passed by the learned Trial Court of conviction and sentence



                               Page 2 of 3
        R/CR.RA/237/2026                                                           ORDER DATED: 05/05/2026




          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.        It is submitted that an amount of Rs.60,000/- has been
          deposited by the accused. In view of the settlement arrived at
          and as admitted by the complainant, the concerned Court is
          directed to disburse an amount of Rs.60,000/- to be paid 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 05/05/2026 17:31:44




                                                     Page 3 of 3