Compounding of offences should not be denied in cases related to negotiable instruments to promote the efficacy of banking operations and ensure credibility in transacting business through cheques.

ORDER :

1. Rule. Ms. M.H. Bhatt, learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent No. 1. Mr. Mayank R. Chavda, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent No. 2.

2. By way of present Criminal Revision Application, applicants have challenged the judgment and order of conviction dated 20.9.2016 passed in Criminal Case No. 2367 of 2015 by learned 3rd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot convicting the applicants for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short “N.I. Act”) as well as order dated 8.12.2017 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 241 of 2016 by learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot wherein, the learned lower appellate Court has been pleased to dismiss the said appeal and confirmed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court.

3. Earlier on 1.4.2022, respondent No. 2 Shri Maheshbhai S. Vadodariya was present before this Court and he was identified by learned advocate for the respondent No. 2. He has filed affidavit dated 17th August, 2021. Learned advocate for the respondent No. 2 has identified the signature of the respondent No. 2 in the affidavit which was executed before the Notary on 17th August, 2021, wherein, he has admitted that settlement is arrived at between the parties and he has received an amount of Rs. 6.00 Lacs from the present applicants. Therefore, Respondent No. 2 has no objection if impugned judgment and orders passed by the Court below are quashed by this court in view of settlement arrived at between them.

4. The relevant paragraphs in the Affidavit filed by respondent No. 2-Shri Maheshbhai S. Vadodariya, are as under:

2. I say and submit that, there are no ill-will or grievance amongst us. Thus, compromise/settlement has been arrived between us. Further submitted that I have received all the pending money from the applicant and now there is no outstanding from the applicant, and now settlement has been arrived between us.

3. I say and submit in the present application, the present applicants herein have prayed for quashing and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 8.12.2017 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 241 of 2016 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot as also the judgment and order dated 20.9.2016 passed in Criminal Case No. 2367 of 2015 by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot. I do not have any objection, if this Hon’ble court may be pleased to grant relief as prayed in the application. I am filing the present affidavit on my own free will and consent without any threat or coercion.

5. Learned advocates for the respective parties also confirm that the settlement is arrived at between the parties and nothing requires to be adjudicated on merits by this Court. Therefore, they have requested this Court to dispose of this Revision Application by quashing and setting aside the impugned judgments and orders challenged in the present revision application.

6. Learned APP has objected the arguments advanced by learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and submitted that after considering the evidence of the complainant as well documentary evidence, a clear conviction was rightly held by both the Courts below and requested to pass necessary order.

7. The Apex Court in the case of Vinay Devanna Nayak vs. Ryot Seva Sahakari Bank Ltd. AIR 2008 SC 716 has observed as under in Paras 17 and 18 of the judgment:

“17. As observed by this Court in Electronic Trade and Technology Development Corporation Ltd. vs. 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 t