IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST CONVICTION - NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT) NO. 2589 of 2025 ================================================= IMRAN ISMAIL KUMBHAR Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ================================================= Appearance: MR HARSHIT S BHATT(12874) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR PRANAV DHAGAT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ================================================= CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL Date : 17/02/2026 ORAL ORDER 1. Learned advocate Mr. Minhaj Shaikh states that he has instructions to appear on behalf of the respondent No. 2 herein – original complainant and shall file his Vakalatnama before the Registry. Registry to accept his Vakalatnama. 2. Considering the issue involved in the present application, with the 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 p. 2 application is taken up for final disposal today as alleged offence is compoundable. 3. By this revision application under Section 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) read with section 442 of BNSS, the applicant has assailed the concurrent findings of the learned Courts below i.e. judgment and order dated 19.12.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 2025 by the learned Sessions Judge, Kutch-Bhuj confirming the judgment and order dated 31.01.2025 passed in Criminal Case No. 1119 of 2018 by the learned 2nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhuj-Kutch, whereby, the applicant is convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “NI Act”) and sentenced to imprisonment with a direction to pay compensation to the original complainant. 4. Learned advocate for the applicant has taken this Court through the factual matrix arising out of the present application. However, 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. 5. Learned advocate for original complainant has reiterated the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the applicant. Original complainant – Rajesh Shamji Maheshwari appeared before p. 3 the Court online and is identified by the learned advocate for the original complainant. The complainant affirms the factum of settlement. He has also filed an affidavit, which is taken on record, stating therein that he has no objection if the judgment and orders impugned in this revision application are quashed and set aside. He also states that he has filed the affidavit without any coercion, threat or undue influence. On inquiry made by the Court, the original complainant has declared before this Court that the dispute between the applicant and the original complainant is resolved as per the averments made in the affidavit of the original complainant and therefore, now the grievance stands redressed. It is, therefore, submitted that the present application may be allowed. 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the extant law, Court may pass appropriate orders. 7. Considering the fact that the dispute is settled between the parties and said fact has been confirmed by the complainant, as the offence is compoundable one at any stage under Section 147 of the NI Act. 8. Resultantly, this revision application is allowed. The judgment and orders impugned in this revision application, referred to herein above, are hereby quashed and set aside. The applicant is acquitted p. 4 of the present charge. Bail bond, if any, shall stand cancelled. Surety shall be discharged. 8.1 The 20% amount deposited by the applicant before the concerned Court be returned to the applicant herein – accused after due verification to which, the original complainant has no objection and shall not take any objection too. 9. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted. [ P. M. Raval, J. ] hiren/3tss17226