High Court of Gujarat
VIKESHKUMAR BABULAL BHATIYAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT
- Disposal
- 58-RULE ISSUED & RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @FH
- Bench
- GITA GOPI
Holding
The conviction under Section 138 NI Act was quashed as the offence was compounded with the complainant's consent under Section 147, which overrides CrPC Section 320(1).
Summary
The petitioner sought revision of his conviction and sentence 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 consented to compound the offence under Section 147 of the NI Act, having received the agreed amount. The court noted that Section 147, as amended, gives overriding effect to Section 320(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, per the Supreme Court decision in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Baba Lal. Accordingly, the conviction was quashed, the petitioner was ordered to be released, and the complainant was directed to receive the settlement amount. The revision application was allowed and the trial court's judgment set aside.
Issues considered
- Whether a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be set aside on the ground of compounding the offence with the complainant's consent.
- Whether Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act overrides the provisions of Section 320(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in matters of compounding offences.
- Effect of an amicable settlement and payment to the complainant on the continuance of criminal liability.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 320(1)
- Negotiable Instruments Acts. 138, s. 147
Subjects
Negotiable Instruments ActSection 138Section 147Compounding of offencesCriminal revisionSettlementCrPC Section 320Conviction quashed
Judgment
R/CR.RA/713/2025 ORDER DATED: 13/04/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST CONVICTION -
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT) NO. 713 of 2025
==========================================================
VIKESHKUMAR BABULAL BHATIYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JM BAROT(143) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. HARSHAL S. PATEL(14220) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR.DIPEN F CHAUDHARI(6740) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR BHARGAV PANDYA APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 13/04/2026
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 16.02.2024
passed by the learned 2nd Additional Chief Judicial magistrate,
Palanpur in Criminal Case no.3584 of 2019 which was
confirmed by the judgment and order dated 05.04.2025
passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Palanpur
in Criminal Appeal no.55 of 2024.
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
Page 1 of 3
R/CR.RA/713/2025 ORDER DATED: 13/04/2026
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. 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 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/713/2025 ORDER DATED: 13/04/2026
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 shall be released from the jail forthwith.
7. In view of the above, the concerned Court is directed to
disburse the amount to the complainant on proper verification
of the identity, deposited before the learned Court below
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)
PARMAR KRISH
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: PARMAR KRISH(HC02348), ENGLISH STENO GRADE-II\, at High Court of Gujarat on 13/04/2026 18:22:21
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