JUDGMENT :

V.M. Pancholi, J.

1. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No. 2 State and learned advocate Mr. Mahesh Pujara waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No. 1. Learned advocate Mr. Pujara is permitted to file vakalatnama in the Registry.

2. This application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code" for short) wherein the applicant has prayed that the judgment and order of conviction dated 9.7.2019 passed by learned 11th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat in Criminal Case No. 68474 of 2016 and the order dated 7.9.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 330 of 2019 by the learned 13th Additional Sessions Judge, Surat and all the other consequential proceedings arising out of the said judgment be quashed and set aside.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Shakeel Qureshi for the applicant, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. L.B. Dabhi for respondent No. 2 State and learned advocate Mr. Mahesh Purajar for respondent No. 1.

4. Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that respondent No. 1 herein has filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ("the N.I. Act" for short) against the applicant for dishonour of cheque amounting to Rs. 1,25,00,000/-. It is submitted that the concerned trial Court, vide impugned order dated 9.7.2019, convicted the applicant for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months and pay a compensation/penalty of Rs. 1,25,20,000/-. The said judgment was carried in appeal which was numbered as Criminal Appeal No. 330 of 2019, which was dismissed vide order dated 7.9.2021 by the learned 13th Additional Sessions Judge, Surat.

4.1. At this state, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that now the dispute is amicably settled with respondent No. 1 - complainant and, therefore, a compromise deed was executed between the parties on 8.12.2021, a copy of which is placed on record at Page-53 of the compilation. Learned advocate for the applicant has also referred the affidavit of the complainant filed before this Court, a copy of which is placed on record at Page-60. It is, therefore, urged that the impugned judgments be quashed and set aside on the ground of settlement arrived at between the parties.

4.2. Learned advocate for the applicant has placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the Honourable 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.

4.3. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant is ready and willing to deposit the required amount with the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority.

5. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Mahesh Pujara also confirmed the settlement arrived at between the parties.

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 Criminal Court for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, which was confirmed by the learned Sessions Court. However, now, the parties have amicably settled the dispute and, therefore, the complainant has filed an affidavit stating that if the order of conviction passed against the applicant is quashed and set aside, he 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 d