Samir J Dave, J.

[1] Mr. A.S. Barot and Mr. P.A. Barot, learned advocates state that they have received instructions to appear for and on behalf of the respondent no.2 in these matters and sought permission to appear on behalf of the respondent no.2. Permission; as sought for; stands granted. They shall file their Vakalatnama before the Registry. Registry shall accept the same.

ORAL ORDER IN CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 1 of 2023 In R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 128 of 2023

Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. AS Barot waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent no.2 and learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent no.1-State.

By this application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the applicant seeks condonation of delay caused in filing the Criminal Revision Application No. 128 of 2023 against the judgment and order dated 07.04.2022 passed by learned 15th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara in Criminal Case No. 6637 of 2021 as well as judgment and order dated 06.09.2022 passed by learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Criminal Appeal No. 139 of 2022.

Having regard to the submissions advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties and more particularly considering the averments made in the memorandum of application, the Court is of the view that the delay caused in filing the Criminal Revision Application No. 128 of 2023 has been sufficiently explained.

The application, therefore, succeeds and is accordingly, allowed. The delay caused in filing the Criminal Revision Application No. 128 of 2023 is hereby condoned.

Present Application stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute.

ORAL ORDER IN In R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 128 of 2023

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. AS Barot waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent no.2 and learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent no.1-State.

[2] By way of present application, the applicant has requested to take the settlement on record and compound the offence by quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 07.04.2022 passed by learned 15th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara in Criminal Case No. 6637 of 2021 as well as judgment and order dated 06.09.2022 passed by learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Criminal Appeal No. 139 of 2022 and acquit the applicant.

[3] Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, a joint submission was made by learned advocates for the respective parties that dispute between the parties is settled amicably.

[4] On a request being made by learned advocate for the respondent no.2, respondent no.2 was permitted to present before this court and while remaining present before this court, he has submitted that the dispute has been settled and he has no objection if impugned both the orders may be quashed and set aside. He has also filed his affidavit for the same which is taken on record.

[5] Learned advocate for the respondent no.2 also submits that the dispute has been settled between the parties and respondent no.2 has no objection if the orders passed by the courts below would be quashed and set aside. Learned advocate for the respondent no.2 has identified the signature of the respondent no.2 in the affidavit.

[6] Learned APP for the respondent State has submitted that while recording evidence produced on record, learned both the courts below have awarded sentence upon the applicant and thus, present application is required to be dismissed and ultimately, he has requested to dismiss present application.

[7] Having considered the facts of the case and submissions made by learned advocates for the respective parties as well as learned APP for the respondent-State and considering the facts of the affidavit filed by the respondent no.2, it appears that the dispute is settled amicably between the parties and for the same and respondent no.2 has no objection if the impugned orders are quashed.

[8] The relevant paragraph of the affidavit filed by the respondent no.2 on 17.02.2023 are as under:

"I further state that I have no objection if the judgments are quashed against Riteshkumar Ajitkumar Thakkar. It is submitted that with the help of social leaders and other well wishers, I have decided not to proceed further with the litigation which will ruin the life of the both the family and therefore, I have decide not to litigate further, therefore, judgments and all other prior and subsequent proceedings pursuant to the said dispute may kindly be quashed by compounding the offence and set aside the same. I have no objection if he has been released from jail forthwith"

[9] The Apex Court in the case of Vinay Devanna Nayak V/s Ryot Seva Sahakari Bank Ltd, 2008 AIR(SC) 716 has observed as under in paras 17 and 18 of the judgment :

"17. As observed by this Court in Electronic Trade & Technology Development Corporation Ltd. V. Indian Technologists and Engineers, 1996 2 SCC 739, the object of bringing Section 138 in the statute book is to inculcate faith in the efficacy of banking operation and credibility in transacting business on negotiable instruments. The provision is intended to prevent dishonesty on the party of the drawer of negotiable instruments in issuing cheques without sufficient funds or with a view to inducing the payee or holder in due course to act upon it. It thus seeks to promote the efficacy of banking operations and ensures credibility in transacting business through cheques. In such matters, therefore, normally compounding of offences should not be denied. Presumably, Parliament also realized this aspect and inserted Section 147 by the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2002 (Act 55 of 2002)".

18.Taking into consideration even the said provision (Section 147) and the primary object underlying Section 138, in our judgment, there is no reason to refuse compromise between the parties. We therefore dispose of the appeal on the basis of the settlement arrived at between the appellant and the respondent."

[10] Applying the ratio of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court to the facts of the present case as well as considering the settlement arrived at between the parties. It also appears that on the basis of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the respondent no.2 has no objection if the impugned orders may be quashed. Thus, I am of the opinion that present application is required to be allowed and the parties be permitted to compound the offence.

[11] In the result, present revision application is allowed. The judgment and order dated 07.04.2022 passed by learned 15th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara in Criminal Case No. 6637 of 2021 as well as judgment and order dated 06.09.2022 passed by learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Criminal Appeal No. 139 of 2022 stand quashed and set aside. The applicant-accused is acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Bail bonds if any stands cancelled.

Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (REGULAR BAIL) NO. 2 of 2023 In R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 128 of 2023

In view of the order of acquitting the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act passed by this court in Criminal Revision Application No. 128 of 2023, present application does not survive and accordingly, stands disposed of