JUDGMENT :

V.M. PANCHOLI, J.

1. Draft Amendment is allowed. Necessary amendment be carried out, forthwith.

2. Rule. Learned APP Mr. L.B. Dabhi waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No. 1 State and learned advocate Ms. Shabnam Alvi waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No. 2.

3. This application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code" for short) for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order of conviction dated 18.02.2021 passed by learned 6th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gandhinagar, in Criminal Case No. 1419 of 2019.

4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Akshay V. Matani for the applicant, learned advocate Ms. Shabnam Alvi for respondent No. 2 - complainant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. L.B. Dabhi for respondent No. 1 - State.

5. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ("N.I. Act" for short) had been filed by respondent No. 2 - complainant against the present applicant. It is further submitted that after conclusion of the trial, the concerned trial Court vide the impugned judgment and order dated 18.02.2021 convicted the present applicant for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Copy of the said order is placed on record at Page-10 of the compilation. At this stage, it is submitted that now, the dispute is amicably settled with respondent No. 2 - complainant and, therefore, the complainant has filed an affidavit before this Court, copy of which is placed on record at Page-35 of the compilation. It is stated in the affidavit that the dispute is amicably settled between the parties and, therefore, if the impugned order of conviction is quashed and set aside, the complainant has no objection.

5.1. Learned advocate for the parties pointed out from the record that on 04.02.2022, the complainant was present in the office of learned advocate Ms. Alvi and he had confirmed that the dispute is settled with the applicant - accused.

5.2. Learned advocate for the applicant has placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. reported in (2010) 5 SCC 663 and the order dated 06.05.2021 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No. 18712 of 2020 (Khokhar Iliyas Bismilla Khan v. State of Gujarat & Anr.). Having relied on the said decisions, learned advocate for the applicant urged that compounding of offence is permissible even after the conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act on certain conditions.

5.3. At this state, learned advocate for the applicant further submitted that the applicant is ready and willing to deposit the required amount of Gujarat State Legal Services Authority.

6. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material placed on record, it has emerged that the applicant has been convicted by the concerned Court for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. However, now, the parties have amicably settled the dispute and, therefore, the respondent No. 2 has filed an affidavit stating that if the order of conviction passed against the applicant is quashed and set aside, the respondent No. 2 has no objection.

7. This Court, in the case of Khokhar Iliyas Bismilla Khan v. State of Gujarat & Anr. (supra), had an occasion to deal with a similar issue which is involved in the present matter. The observations made in Paragraphs-16 and 16.2 of the said decision are as under:

"16. Applying the ratio of various decisions by this Court and the Apex Court as well as in view of the guidelines as laid down in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu (Supra) as also considering the object of Section 138 of the NI Act, which is mainly to inculcate faith in the efficacy of banking operations and credibility of transacting business through cheque as also taking into account the provisions of Section 147 which states that every offence punish