R/CR.RA/561/2026 ORDER DATED: 23/03/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST CONVICTION - NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT) NO. 561 of 2026 ========================================================== BHARATKUMAR BHAGUBHAI PATEL Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance: MR SAADMAN A PIRZADA(10870) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS JYOTI BHATT APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI Date : 23/03/2026 ORAL ORDER 1. Learned advocate Mr. Deshal Modi appears for respondent No.2 and seeks permission to le Vakalatnama. Permission is granted. Oice to accept the same. 2. Rule. Learned advocates waive service of notice on behalf of respondent parties. Rule is xed forthwith. 3. By way of this application, the applicant – revisionist challenges the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 13.01.2023 passed by the learned 23rd Additional Chief Additional Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara in Criminal Case No.20027 of 2020 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The above sentence was challenged by way of an Appeal and the same was conrmed on 31.01.2026 by the learned 11th Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara in R/CR.RA/561/2026 ORDER DATED: 23/03/2026 Criminal Appeal No.78 of 2023. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Saadman A.Pirzada for the applicant – revisionist stated that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. 5. The aidavit of the respondent No.2 - Alpesh Bharatkumar Dave, original complainant is on record. The original complainant is present before this Court, who has been identied by learned advocate Mr. Deshal Modi. The original complainant states and airms that the the matter has been settled between the parties amicably. The complainant stated that the he has received the total amount of cheque and thus, stated that necessary order may be passed and the complainant does not want to pursue the matter now in view of amicable settlement and has given consent for compounding the oence. 6. Since the complainant has given consent for compounding the oence, keeping in mind the object of Section 147 of the NI Act, which is an enabling provision which provides for compounding the oence and may require the consent of the aggrieved for compounding the oence, however, the specic provision under Section 147, inserted by way of amendment towards special law, would give overriding eect to sub-section (1) of Section 320 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) 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 R/CR.RA/561/2026 ORDER DATED: 23/03/2026 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. 7. In aforesaid view of the matter, the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court of conviction and sentence for the oence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act, as airmed by the learned Appellate Court, are quashed and set aside. 8. Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of in the above terms. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted. (GITA GOPI,J) Pankaj/52 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 23/03/2026 15:47:26