Dismissed

Sharad Vinayak Bhave v. Manoj Trymbakrao Wankhede and Anr.

Bombay HC22 Aug 2006APPLN/2131/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court rejected criminal application for revision against acquittal on a cheque bounce complaint. Trial Judge acquitted due to admitted refund of full amount plus compensation from consumer forum. High Court held no case for leave.

What did the court decide?

Application rejected, reviseal leave denied.

What the court decided

Sharad Vinayak Bhave Vs Manoj Trymbakrao Wankhede and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

:1:

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2131 OF 2003

¶4

Mr. Sharad Vinayak Bhave ... Applicant.

¶5

V/s.

¶6

Mr. Manoj Tryambakrao Wankhede ... Respondents.

¶7

Mr. R.S. Apte with Mr. M.S. Lagu, for the Applicant. Mr. Harshad Palve, for the Respondent No.1. Mr. S.V. More, APP for the State.

¶8

CORAM : A.S. OKA, J. DATE : 22ND AUGUST 2006

¶9

P.C. : 1.	Heard	Adv	ocate		appe	aring	for	the Ap	plicant.	The
Applicant	is		the	co	mplain	ant	in	a complaint	filed	under
Section	138	of	the		Negot	iable	In	struments Act,	1881.	The
complaint	is	bas	ed	on	a	cheq	ue	dated 30th	January	1999
issued	by	the	fir	st	Re	spond	ent	in favou	r of	the

¶10

complainant. The said cheque was dishonoured and

¶11

therefore, the said complaint came to be filed.

¶12

2.	The	case	of the	appl	icant	- co	mplainant is	that	first
Respon	dent agr	eed	to sale		a flat	in	his	favour	for
conside	ration	of	Rs.2,25,000/-.		Ac	cording	to the	case	of
the	applicant,	he	paid	a	sum	of	Rs.1,85,0	00/-to	the
Respon	dent.	Acc	ording to	the	case	of	the applic	ant,	the
first	Respondent	sold	the sa	me	flat	to	a third	party	prior
to	the	executio	n of		agreeme	nt	with the	Ap	plicant.
Accord	ing to	the	case	of		the	Applicant,	the	first
Respon	dent ag	reed	to pay	a	sum	of R	s.4,00,500/-	to	the

¶13

:2:

¶14

applicant against payment of a sum of Rs.1,85,000/which is paid by the applicant. The first Respondent issued a

¶15

cheque in the sum of Rs.1,25,000/- on 30th January 1999

¶16

which was dishonoured.

¶17

In the impugned Judgment and Order, the learned Trial Judge has noted the admitted position that the applicant proceeded against the first Respondent in Consumer Forum by filing a complaint. The said complaint was decided on 31st March 2002. As per the directions given by the Consumer Forum, the first Respondent has paid Rs.1,85,000/to the Applicant by way of refund and a sum

¶18

of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation. Admittedly, the

¶19

applicant has received a sum of Rs.2,85,000/-.

¶20

4.	The	learned	Counsel	for	the	applicant	submitted	that
the p	roceeding	before	th	e Cons	umer	Forum	was	totally
independent	pr	oceeding	and	once	the	ingredients	of	the
offence	under	Section	138	of the	said	Act of	1881	were
satisfied,	the	trial	Court	ought	to	have	convicted	the

¶21

first Respondent. He submitted that the trial Court has

¶22

committed clear illegality.

¶23

5.	I ha	ve considered	the	sub	missions.	The	learned	Trial
Judge	on	the basis of	adm	itted	position	that	the	first
Respondent	has	now paid		sum	of	Rs.2,85,000/-	to	the
applicant	and	after consider	ing	the	fact	that the		cheque
amount	was	of Rs.1,25,0	00/-		has	acquitted	the	first

¶24

:3:

¶25

Respondent	of		the offence	under	Sect	ion	138 of	the	said
Act	of 1881.		Considering	the	adm	itted	position	that	the
first	Respondent		has paid	sum	of	Rs.	2,85,000/-	to	the
Applicant,	it	can	be said	that	the	view	taken	by	the
learned tria	l Judge was a p	ossib	le view which could	have

¶26

been taken considering the material on record.

¶27

As the view taken by the trial Court is a possible view and considering the fact that the Applicant has already received sum of Rs.2,85,000/-, no case is made out

¶28

for grant of leave. Accordingly, application is rejected.

¶29

JUDGE

Sharad Vinayak Bhave v. Manoj Trymbakrao Wankhede and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Sharad Vinayak Bhave v. Manoj Trymbakrao Wankhede 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

Shivaji Babu Chavan Vs Pandurang Babu Cahvan and Anr.

Sanjay Madhav Athavale Vs Gupta Enterprises and Ors.

Shantilal R. Shah Vs Hemlata Rassiklal Shah and Ors.

Mr. Michael Abreo Vs Jayesh N. Dhavud and Anr.

Vinayak Ganpati Pol Vs Raosaheb Dhulgonda Patil and Anr.

Riyaj Allisaheb Patil Vs Prakash Narsing Moholkar and Ors.