Partly allowed

Amarnath Kapoor v. D.S. Anand and Anr.

Bombay HC10 Apr 2006APEAL/398/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction disposed of pending appeals and applications. The appeal was dismissed as it was withdrawn due to a settlement between the parties. The compounding application was granted, leading to the acquittal of the applicant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The revision application was disposed of as it no longer survived.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed as withdrawn; applicant acquitted for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act; revision application disposed of.

Amarnath Kapoor Vs D.S. Anand and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

:1:

¶2

 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.398 OF 2005

¶4

 WITH
 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.58 OF 2006

¶5

 WITH
 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.34 OF 2005

¶6

----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Office notes, office Memoranda Court’s or Judge’s orders.
 of Coram, appearance, Court’s
 orders or directions and
 Registrar’s orders.

¶7

 Mr.T.R.Yadav holding for Mr.
 S.V.Marwadi for the Appellant.

¶8

 Mrs. G.P. Mulekar, APP. for the State.

¶9

 Mr. Ganesh Bhujbal holding for Mr.
 Prakash Naik for the Applicant.

¶10

 Mrs. G.P. Mulekar, APP. for the State.
 .......

¶11

 Mr. Ganesh Bhujbal holding for Mr.
 Prakash Naik for the Applicant.

¶12

 Mr.T.R.Yadav holding for Mr.
 S.V.Marwadi for the Respondent No.1.

¶13

 Nrs. G.P. Mulekar, APP. for the State.
 ......

¶14

CORAM : R.S. MOHITE,J.
DATED : 10/4/2006.

¶15

 P.C.

¶16

 1. This is an appeal against the

¶17

 acquittal. Parties have settled the
 matter. The appellant Mr.Amarnath

¶18

:2:

¶19

 Kapoor has filed reply in Criminal
 Application No.58/2006 in Cri.

¶20

 Revision Application No.34/2005 stating
 that the parties have settled the
 dispute and he would like to withdraw
 the Criminal Application No.1086/2004
 filed in this court. That Criminal
 application was for grant of leave to
 file the present appeal and leave was
 granted. In the circumstances,
 Advocate for the appellant seeks leave
 to withdraw the appeal. Appeal is

¶21

 therefore, dismissed as withdrawn.

¶22

 Cri. Application No.58/2006

¶23

 1. This is an application for
 compounding the matter. The parties
 have settled their dispute. Reply is
 filed today by the original respondent
 who is the complainant stating that he
 has received the agreed amount and
 three post dated cheques of the balance
 amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to secure the
 payment. He has given no objection for
 passing appropriate order. In the

¶24

:3:

¶25

 circumstances, conviction for the
 offence U/s. 138 of the Negotiable
 Instruments Act is allowed to be
 compounded and accordingly the present
 applicant is acquitted for the offence
 punishable U/s.138 of the Negotiable

¶26

 Instruments Act.

¶27

 2. Affidavit in reply is taken on
 record.

¶28

 Cri. Revision Application No.34/2005

¶29

 1. In view of the order passed in
 Criminal Application No.58/2006,
 criminal revision does not survive and

¶30

 the same is disposed off.

¶31

(R. S. MOHITE,J.)

Amarnath Kapoor v. D.S. Anand and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amarnath Kapoor v. D.S. Anand and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramji Chhotelal Sharma Vs Koushal Kailash Sharma and Anr. .

Chandrakant Gangadhar Kshirsagar Vs Dayaram Motiram Pekhale and Anr.

Chandrakant Gangadhar Kshirsagar Vs Dayaram Motiram Pekhale and Anr.

Sham Jairamdas Bajaj and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Cedric Vaz and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Cedric Vaz and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra