JUDGMENT :

V.M. Pancholi, J.

1. Rule Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No. 1 State and learned advocate Mr. Amit Bhavsar waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No. 2.

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 27.12.2021 passed by learned Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Himmatnagar in Criminal Case No. 142 of 2020 and all the other consequential proceedings arising out of the said judgment be quashed and set aside.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Kumar Trivedi for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Ronak Raval for respondent No. 1 State and learned advocate Mr. Amit Bhavsar for respondent No. 2.

4. Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that respondent No. 2 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. 1,32,000/-. It is submitted that the concerned trial Court, vide impugned order dated 27.12.2021, 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 a compensation of Rs. 1,32,000/- was ordered to be paid.

4.1 At this state, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that now the dispute is amicably settled with respondent No. 2-complainant and, therefore, the complainant filed affidavit stating that the dispute is settled between the parties and the complainant has no objection if the complaint is set aside. It is, therefore, urged that the impugned judgment 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. Amit Bhavsar also submitted that a settlement is arrived at between the parties. Respondent No. 2 is also present through video conferencing. When inquired, respondent No. 2 has stated that if the impugned judgment is quashed and set aside, he has no objection. Learned advocate Mr. Bhavsar has identified him and confirmed the factor of settlement 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. 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 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 fa