Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.RA/11020/2004 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 110 of 2004
======================================
LOKHANDWALA
JAGDISH JAGMOHAN & 3 - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
======================================
Appearance
:
MR CHETAN K PANDYA for
Applicant(s) : 1 - 4.
MR RC KODEKAR, APP, for Respondent(s) :
1,
MR SK BUKHARI for Respondent(s) :
2,
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 19/03/2009
ORAL
ORDER
1. The
applicants have prayed to quash the judgment and order dated 15th
November 2003 passed by learned Second Joint Judicial Magistrate,
First Class, Ankleshwar, below Exh.8 in Criminal Case No.3938 of
2003.
2. The
respondent no.2 herein has filed Criminal Case No.3938 of 2003 before
the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Anklesher under section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, inter alia alleging that
the applicants are partners of one M/s Matang Enterprise who have
issued two cheques each of Rs.66,153/- dated 11.2.2003 bearing
No.529416 and 529417 drawn on Bank of India, Ankleshwar; that the
said cheques when presented for encashment, have returned unpaid with
an endorsement Insufficient Funds . 3. 3. The complainant
had issued notice to which the applicants have replied stating that
they are not responsible for the dishonour of cheques as the
applicants have retired as partners of the firm M/s Matang Enterprise
with effect from 30.6.1996. Thereafter the aforesaid criminal
compliant came to be filed.
4.
The applicants filed an application below Exh.8 before the trial
court to drop the proceedings and/or to discharge the applicants. The
learned Second Joint Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ankleshwar by
order dated 15.11.2003 rejected the said application against which
the present application has been filed.
5.
When the matter is taken up it is pointed out that the parties
have arrived at a settlement and this Court may quash the
proceedings. The terms of the compromise have been placed on record.
It is well settled law that when the parties have settled the
dispute, it would not be in the interest of justice to subject the
accused to face further criminal proceedings. I am therefore of the
view that the proceedings deserve to be quashed.
6.
In the premises aforesaid, the order dated 15th November
2003 passed by learned Second Joint Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Ankleshwar, below Exh.8 in Criminal Case No.3938 and the proceedings
of Criminal Case No.3938 of 2003 are hereby quashed and set aside.
Rule is made absolute accordingly.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.]
ar
Top