2022 (5) TMI 302 - HC - Indian Laws

High Court quashes conviction under Sec 138 NI Act, acquits accused, emphasizes banking credibility, permits settlement withdrawal.

Rajnikant Meghjibhai Solanki Versus Proprietor of Joy Corporation Anil Vasantbhai Solanki

The High Court allowed the revision application, quashed the order of conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and acquitted the ... Dishonor of Cheque - amicable settlement of dispute - compounding of offences - Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - HELD THAT:- The revision application is required to be allowed and the parties be permitted to compound the offence. The applicant-accused is acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act except he is not convicted in connection with any other offence - the revision application is allowed. Issues:Challenge to the order of conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, settlement between parties leading to withdrawal of charges, application for withdrawal/disbursement of deposited amount.Analysis:1. The applicant challenged the order of conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, passed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court. The respondent No. 1, proprietor of Joy Corporation, appeared before the High Court and expressed no objection to quashing the impugned judgments due to a settlement between the parties. The respondent filed an affidavit confirming the settlement and requesting withdrawal of the deposited amounts by the accused.2. The settlement between the parties was further evidenced by the respondent's affidavit stating the amount deposited by the accused and the request for withdrawal of the same. Both parties' advocates confirmed the settlement, emphasizing that no further adjudication was necessary. The learned advocate for the respondent objected, citing the evidence presented in the case, but the court considered the settlement agreement paramount.3. Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Vinay Devanna Nayak v. Ryot Seva Sahakari Bank Ltd., the court emphasized the importance of promoting banking operations' credibility and allowing compromises in such cases. Applying this precedent, the court allowed the revision application, quashed the impugned judgments, and acquitted the accused of the Section 138 charge, provided there were no other offenses involved.4. In a separate application for withdrawal/disbursement of the deposited amount, the court permitted the accused to withdraw Rs. 4,00,000 as per the settlement terms mentioned in the affidavit filed by the respondent. The trial court was directed to release the amount to the applicant after verification, thereby disposing of the application accordingly.