R/CR.RA/612/2017 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST CONVICTION - NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT) NO. 612 of 2017 ========================================================== GAURAV HARGOVINDBHAI DAVE Versus RUTUL S/O ROHITKUMAR PATEL - PARTNER OF SHREE VINAYAK DEVELOPERS - A PARTNERSHIP FIRM & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance: MR. BHADRISH S RAJU(6676) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR KUNAL VYAS WITH MR NISARG DESAI WITH MR DEVARSH TRIVEDI WITH MS NITYA JOSHI FOR GANDHI LAW ASSOCIATES(12275) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR HARDIK MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 02/05/2025 ORAL ORDER 1. Considering the issue involved in the present application and with consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties as well as considering the fact that the dispute amongst the applicant and original complainant has been resolved amicably, this application is taken up for final disposal forthwith as alleged offence is bailable and compoundable. 2. By way of this application under Section 397 (section 438 of BNSS) read with Section 401 (section 442 of BNSS) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “CrPC”), the applicant has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 22.06.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Court No.25, Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No.367 of 2014 confirming order dated 16.10.2014 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, N.I. Act Court No.34, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No.136 of 2011 whereby, the applicant sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two years and to pay amount of R/CR.RA/612/2017 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2025 compensation of Rs.1 crore within 30 days from the date of order and, in default, to undergo further Simple Imprisonment for six months. Hence, this Revision Application is filed. 3. Learned advocate for the applicant has taken this Court through the factual matrix arising out of the present application. At the outset, it is submitted that the parties have amicably resolved the issue. It is further submitted that in view of the fact that the dispute is resolved, present application deserves consideration. 4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has opposed the present application and submitted that considering the seriousness of the offence, present application may be rejected. 5. The learned advocates appearing for the complainant have confirmed that the matter has been settled between the parties. In this regard, an authorized officer on behalf of the complainant, Vinayak Developers, has appeared virtually before this Court and has been identified by the learned advocate for the complainant and filed on record a consent terms. It is therefore submitted that the present application may be allowed. 6. At the outset, learned advocates for the respective parties have jointly submitted that matter is settled and now the original complainant does not wants to pursue for the further litigation as complainant and applicant have settled the matter and in this regard, affidavit of original complainant has been placed, which R/CR.RA/612/2017 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2025 is taken on record. The contents of the consent terms is also admitted by the original complainant. Even an authorized officer on behalf of the complainant has virtually remained present before this Court and stated that he has no objection if the conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court as well as Appellate Court is set aside. 7. Pursuant to the order dated 04.07.2017 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, the applicant has deposited an amount of one crore rupees before the Registry. However, during the pendincy of this application, the issue is amicably settled between the parties on the following terms: “4. The parties have agreed to the following terms for settlement: a. Respondent No.1 to withdraw the amount deposited by the Applicant along with the accrued interest and that Applicant has no objection to the said withdrawal. b. Upon execution of the present consent terms, the Respondent No.1 shall withdraw the criminal case as well as one Summary Suit being 772 of 2013 pending before Ld. City Civil Court, Ahmedabad in connection with the present dispute. Such withdrawal shall be unconditional and without any further claim or demand. c. The Respondent No. 1 will personally appear before the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat and before any other court where the proceedings are pending between the parties and will execute any other documents as required for the above mentioned withdrawal of cases.” 8. Considering the fact that the dispute is settled between the parties and the applicant has deposited one crore rupees and said fact has been confirmed by the complainant as offence is compoundable. But, as accused has settled the dispute at R/CR.RA/612/2017 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2025 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, accused is required to be saddled with cost. 9. Resultantly, this revision application is allowed. The order dated 22.06.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Court No.25, Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No.367 of 2014 as well as order dated 16.10.2014 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, N.I. Act Court No.34, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No.136 of 2011 are hereby quashed and set aside with respect to the applicant, subject to deposit of 5% i.e. Rs.5,00,000/- of the amount of cheque i.e. Rs.1,00,00,000/- (one crore rupees) before the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority. As stated by the learned advocate for the respective parties the amount laying with the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, the Nazir of trial Court is directed to release the deposited amount in favour of the complainant after due verification. 10 On compliance of the said order, if the applicant is behind the bar, he shall be released subject to deposit of aforesaid amount of cost, if his presence is no longer required in any other criminal offence. 11 The present application is allowed qua applicant. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ALI Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: ISTAYAK ALI(HC01093), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 06/05/2025 10:43:46