High Court of Gujarat
AMARSHI CHAGANBHAI BHANDERIversusKIRIT MAGANBHAI JIVRAJANI
- Disposal
- 38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH
- Bench
- GITA GOPI
Holding
The conviction under Section 138 NI Act was quashed and the applicant was acquitted, as the offence was compounded with the complainant's consent.
Summary
The applicant, Amarshi Chaganbhai Bhanderi, was convicted by a magistrate on 25‑02‑2022 for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a conviction that was affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge on 06‑12‑2025. The parties subsequently settled the dispute amicably, with the complainant withdrawing the amount previously deposited with the appellate court and confirming that the full settlement amount had been paid. The complainant consented to compound the offence under Section 147 of the NI Act, invoking the overriding effect of this provision over CrPC Section 320 as recognized in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Baba Lal. The High Court, considering the settlement and the statutory provisions, quashed the conviction and acquitted the applicant, also permitting the withdrawal of the remaining settlement amount. The revision application was therefore allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be set aside on the ground of compounding the offence after the parties have settled the dispute.
- Whether Section 147 of the NI Act overrides the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the context of compounding.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 320
- Negotiable Instruments Acts. 138, s. 147
Subjects
Negotiable Instruments ActSection 138Section 147Compounding of offencesCriminal revisionSettlementConviction quashedCrPC Section 320
Judgment
R/CR.RA/2532/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/03/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST CONVICTION -
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT) NO. 2532 of 2025
==========================================================
AMARSHI CHAGANBHAI BHANDERI
Versus
KIRIT MAGANBHAI JIVRAJANI & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JAIMIN D PANDYA(10040) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR PH BUCH(1018) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NILAY V SUCHAK(8280) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS JYOTI BHATT APP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 16/03/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. RULE. Learned advocates waive service of Rule on
behalf of the respective respondents.
2. The applicant-accused had been convicted by the 7 th
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamnagar on 25.02.2022
in Criminal Case No.2777 of 2017 for the o'ence under
Section 138 of the N.I. Act, which was upheld and con,rmed
on 06.12.2025 by the learned 2 nd Additional Sessions Judge,
Jamnagar in Criminal Appeal No.72 of 2022.
4. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the
parties have settled the disputes amicably outside the Court
and that there remains no grievance between them.
Page 1 of 3
R/CR.RA/2532/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/03/2026
5. Original complainant respondent no.1 – Kirit Maganlal
Jivrajani is present before this Court along with learned
advocate Mr. Nilay V.Suchak, who has placed on record the
a'idavit ,led by the respondent no.1 – original complainant
along with settlement deed and stated that the amount, as
agreed between the parties has already been paid.
Respondent No.1 - original complainant has a'irmed the
contents of the a'idavit and stated that he has already
withdrawn Rs.45,000/- deposited before the appellate Court
and rest of the amount as Rs.1,60,000/- is also deposited
before the appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.72 of 2022
in compliance to the order of this Court dated 22.12.2025,
which may be permitted to be withdrawn.
6. Since the complainant has given consent for
compounding the o'ence, keeping in mind the object of
Section 147 of the NI Act, which is an enabling provision
which provides for compounding the o'ence and may require
the consent of the aggrieved for compounding the o'ence,
however, the speci,c provision under Section 147, inserted by
way of amendment towards special law, would give overriding
e'ect 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/2532/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/03/2026
7. In aforesaid view of the matter, the judgment and order
of conviction and sentence dated 25.02.2022 passed by the
learned 7th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamnagar in
Criminal Case No.2777 of 2017 for the o'ence punishable
under Section 138 of the NI Act, as a'irmed by the learned 2nd
Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar in Criminal Appeal No.72
of 2022 on 06.12.2025, are quashed and set aside. The
applicant stands acquitted.
8. The amount of Rs.1,60,000/- is permitted to be
withdrawn by the original complainant on proper veri,cation
of identity.
9. 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)
Pankaj/2 (suppl. Board-II)
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 17/03/2026 18:06:40
Page 3 of 3
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Negotiable Instruments Act"Sign in to search