Point of Law: Inherent powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India include powers to quash FIR, investigation or any criminal proceedings pending before High Court or any court subordinate to it and are of wide magnitude and ramification.

ORDER :

1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of Respondent No.1-State and learned advocate Mr. P.M. Dave waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of Respondent-2.

2. By this application under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the applicant has prayed to quash and set aside judgment and order dated 04.10.2021 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Mahesana in Criminal Appeal No.28 of 2020 and the judgment and order dated 16.12.2019 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahesana in Criminal Case No.850 of 2017.

3. In view of the fact that the parties have settled their disputes, learned advocate for respondent no.2-original complainant jointly with learned advocate for the applicant submitted that offence may be permitted to be compounded.

4. It appears from the record that applicant was put to trial in the Court of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahesana in Criminal Case No.850 of 2017 for the offences punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The Trial Court vide judgment and order dated 16.12.2019 held the applicant herein guilty for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

5. As the applicant came to be convicted by the Trial Court, they preferred Criminal Appeal No.28/2020 in the Court of the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Mahesana. The appeal came to be rejected by the learned Sessions Court, Mahesana vide order dated 04.10.2021 and confirmed the order passed by the learned Trial Court. Being aggrieved with the same, the applicant has come up with this application.

6. The complainant-respondent no.2 Bank has produced on record an affidavit, the same is taken on record, wherein the original complainant confirms about the settlement having been arrived at. In the affidavit, the complainant stated as under :

“2. That I say and submit that the HDFC Bank-respondent No.2 herein through its authorized officer filed a complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act 1881 against the present applicant for dishonor of cheque amounting to Rs.4,00,000/- before the Hon’ble 2nd Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahesana.

3. It is further submitted that the concerned trial Court vide the impugned judgment and order dated 16.12.2019 convicted the present applicant for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

4. I further say and submit that thereafter, applicant-original accused had preferred criminal appeal before the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Mahesana, wherein, Ld. Sessions Judge, Mahesana was pleased to convict the present applicant vide order dated 04.10.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No.28 of 2020.

5. I say and submit that I have gone through the memo of revision application and the facts and grounds stated in the memo of petition are not disputed by me, because applicant had already settled the matter by depositing dues amount and now all accounts of applicant are closed and therefore, the disputes and grievances of both the sides have been amicably settled. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, if the judgment and order of conviction passed by both the courts below against the applicant may be quashed and set aside in accordance with law.”

7. In case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Apex court has considered the relative scope of section 482 and section 320 of the Code and has laid down the parameters as to in what kind of cases and facts and circumstances, the High Court can advert to its inherent power under section 482 of the Code to quash criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court examined previous decisions of the Apex Court in cases of B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675, Nikhil Merchant vs. CBI reported in (2008) 9 SCC 677 and Manoj Sharma vs. State reported in (2008) 16 SCC 1