Disposed

Viren Bhansali v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC12 Sept 2005WP/570/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal writ petition seeking quashing of multiple cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Court observed that the parties had amicably settled the dispute and the complainant agreed to withdraw the cases.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of in terms of the consent terms tendered by the parties, reflecting the withdrawal of pending cases.

Viren Bhansali Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

 (-1-)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 570 OF 2005

¶5

 Viren Bhansali ...Petitioner

¶6

 Versus

¶7

 State of Maharashtra & Ors ...Respondents

¶8

 Mr. Vivek Kantawale i/b Kantawala & Co., Advocate
 for Petitioner

¶9

 Mr. S.V. Marwadi i/b Mr. V.V. Yadav, Adv.for
 respondent No.2.

¶10

 Mr. Y.S. Shinde, A.P.P. for State.

¶11

CORAM:SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.

¶12

DATED: 12TH SEPTEMBER, 2005

¶13

P. C.:-

¶14

 1. Leave to amend. Amendment to be carried out

¶15

 forthwith.

¶16

 2. Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner

¶17

 i.e. original accused, the learned advocate for
 respondent No.2 i.e. original complainant and the
 learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner i.e.

¶18

 the original accused and the respondent No.2 i.e.
 original complainant are present in person before the
 Court.

¶19

 3. The petitioner is seeking quashing of Case Nos.

¶20

 (-2-)

¶21

 128/S/2005, 129/S/2005 and 130/S/2005 which are

¶22

 pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate,
 Small Causes Court, Greater Mumbai and Case Nos.
 164/SS/2003 and 165/SS/2003 which are pending before
 the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Andheri, Mumbai.
 All the said cases under Section 138 of Negotiable
 Instruments Act.

¶23

 4. It is stated by the learned counsel for both the
 parties that the petitioner and the respondent No.2
 i.e. original complainant have amicably settled the
 dispute among themselves and the respondent
 complainant has stated that he would withdraw the
 above mentioned five cases filed by him against the
 petitioner. The parties have tendered consent terms
 to that effect which are taken on record and marked

¶24

 ‘X’ for identification.

¶25

 5. Petition is disposed of in terms of the consent

¶26

 terms.

¶27

 *****

Viren Bhansali v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Viren Bhansali v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kiran Dinkar Patil Vs Prashant Mahadeo Karande and Anr.

Bebitai Ramling Deshmukh and Anr. Vs Karmayogi S.R. Paricharak Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Patsanstha Mydt. and Anr.

Ghalappa Sardar Nadgeri and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Ravindra Mahadeo Dhadake

Marappa @ Gurusidha Bhimrao Padavale Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Ravindra Mahadeo Dhadake