IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST CONVICTION -

NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT) NO. 424 of 2026 ==========================================================

VIRABHAI NATHUBHAI LAGARIYA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR PUNAM G GADHVI(3724) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR PREMAL S RACHH(3297) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR. ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL Date : 13/02/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as learned advocate appearing for the original complainant waive service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respective respondents.

2. Considering the issue involved in the present application, with the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties as well as considering the fact that the dispute amongst the applicant and original complainant has been resolved amicably, this application is taken up for final disposal today as alleged offence is compoundable.

3. By this revision application under Section 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) read with section 442 of BNSS, the applicant has prayed for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 19.09.2022 passed by the learned 9^th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Special Negotiable Court, Jamnagar, in Criminal Case No. 3219 of 2022, whereby the trial Court held the applicant guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “NI Act”) and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment (SI) of one year and also directed to pay the cheque amount to the original complainant as compensation. The said order was assailed before the learned 4^th Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar, by way of Criminal Appeal No. 286 of 2022, which came to be dismissed vide judgment and order dated 01.11.2023 and the order of conviction has been confirmed and upheld. Aggrieved thereby, this revision application is filed.

4. Learned advocate for the applicant has taken this Court through the factual matrix arising out of the present application. However, it is submitted that the parties have amicably resolved the issue. It is further submitted that in view of the fact that the dispute is resolved, present application deserves consideration.

5. Learned advocate for original complainant has reiterated the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the applicant. Original complainant – Amitkumar Kantilal Lakhani appeared before the Court. The complainant affirms the factum of settlement. He has also filed an affidavit to the record of application of condonation of delay, stating therein that he has no objection if the judgment and orders impugned in this revision application are quashed and set aside. He also states that he has filed the affidavit without any coercion, threat or undue influence, on his own volition. On inquiry made by the Court, the original complainant has declared before this Court that the dispute between the applicant and the original complainant is resolved and therefore, now the grievance stands redressed. It is, therefore, submitted that the present application may be allowed.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the extant law, Court may pass appropriate orders.

7. Considering the fact that the dispute is settled between the parties and said fact has been confirmed by the complainant, as the offence is compoundable one at any stage under Section 147 of the NI Act.

8. Resultantly, this revision application is allowed. The judgment and orders impugned in this revision application, referred to herein above, are hereby quashed and set aside. The applicant is acquitted of the present charge. Bail bond and surety, if any, shall stand discha