R/CR.RA/426/2026 ORDER DATED: 10/03/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST CONVICTION - NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT) NO. 426 of 2026 ========================================================== RAHUL BABULAL SHAH PROPRIETOR OF JAY TRAVELS Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance: MS JAHNAVI D PANCHAL(11344) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR BHARGAV PANDYA APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI Date : 10/03/2026 ORAL ORDER 1. Learned advocate Mr. D.J. Mehta seeks permission to le vakalatnma on behalf of respondent no.2 - original complainant. Permission is granted. O ice to accept vakalatnama of Mr. Mehta. 2. RULE. Learned advocates waive service of Rule on behalf of the respective respondents. 3. The applicant-accused had been convicted by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad on 30.01.2025 in Criminal Case No.48533 of 2023 for the o ence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced him to undergo one year simple imprisonment, which was upheld and conrmed on 05.01.2026 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No.194 of 2025. Page 1 of 3 R/CR.RA/426/2026 ORDER DATED: 10/03/2026 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. 5. Original complainant is present before this Court along with learned advocate Mr. D.J. Mehta, who has placed on record the a idavit led by the respondent no.2–original complainant and stated that the amount, as agreed between the parties has already been paid. The same is taken on record. Respondent No.2 - original complainant has a irmed the contents of the a idavit and stated that total amount of Rs.3,50,000/- had been received. 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 specic 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/426/2026 ORDER DATED: 10/03/2026 7. In aforesaid view of the matter, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30.01.2025 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No.48533 of 2023 for the o ence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act, as a irmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No.194 of 2025 dated 05.01.2026, are quashed and set aside. The applicant stands acquitted. 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) Pankaj/45 p. 3