Allowed

Mohan Kumar Rayana and Anr. v. Rajendraprasad Rameshwarlal and Ors.

Bombay HC26 Aug 2008APPLN/597/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal application, the High Court of Bombay quashed criminal proceedings against two applicants who were Managing and Non-Executive Directors of a company. The criminal case, based on dishonoured cheques and alleged cheating, had arisen from a commercial transaction but was subsequently settled via a memorandum of understanding.

What did the court decide?

Criminal case proceedings were quashed. No order as to costs passed.

Mohan Kumar Rayana and Anr. Vs Rajendraprasad Rameshwarlal… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.597 OF 2008

¶4

1. Mohan Kumar Rayana
 Age : 48 years
 R/o.D-17, Jeevan Nagar,
 21st Road, Chembur,
 Mumbai – 400 071

¶5

..Applicants

¶6

2. Smt.Vijaya Rayana
 Age : 68 years
 R/o.D-17, Jeevan Nagar,
 21st Road, Chembur,
 Mumbai – 400 071

¶7

 V/s.

¶8

1. Rajendraprasad Rameshwarlal Jhavar
 Constituted Attorney of
 M/s.Arvind Chemical Industries,
 A Proprietorship Concern of
 Mr.Jagdishprasad Mahalchand Jhavar
 Having its office at 201, Oriental House
 229-231, Samuel Street,
 Mumbai – 3

¶9

2. The Senior Inspector of Police
 Pydhoni Police Station,
 Mumbai

¶10

3. The State of Maharashtra

¶11

Mr.Subodh Desai, Advocate, for the applicants
Mr.Paresh Madkaikar, Advocate, for opponent No.1
Mr.Y.S.Shinde, A.P.P, for the State

¶12

CORAM : A.S.OKA, J.

¶13

DATE : 26TH AUGUST, 2008

¶14

¶15

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶16

. Rule.

¶17

2.The learned advocate waives service for the
opponent Nos.1 to 3. The learned A.P.P waives
service for the State of Maharashtra.

¶18

3.The 1st applicant is the Managing Director of
M/s.Pharmaceutical Products of India Limited and
the 2nd applicant is a non-executive Director of the
said Company.

¶19

4.Between 14th July, 1997 to 26th September,
1997, M/s.Arvind Chemical Industries sold and
supplied certain chemicals to the said Company.

¶20

The said Company had issued 11 cheques. Out of 11
cheques 9 cheques were dishonoured. The 1st opponent
who is the constituted Attorney of M/s.Arvind
Chemical Industries filed a complaint under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against

¶21

the applicants. The 1st opponent also lodged a
complaint with the police alleging commission of
offence under Section 420 read with 34 of the

¶22

¶23

Indian Penal Code against the applicants.

¶24

Accordingly, F.I.R was registered by the police.

¶25

5.It is stated in the application that on 17th
January, 2004 there was a settlement executed
between the said Company and the proprietor of
M/s.Arvind Chemical Industries duly represented by
the 1st opponent as the constituted Attorney of the
proprietor. As per the settlement, the 1st opponent
agreed to withdraw Criminal proceedings against the
applicants and their Company. Accordingly,
complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 was withdrawn by the 1st
opponent. The present application is for quashing
the proceedings of Criminal case instituted on the
basis of F.I.R registered at the instance of the 1st
opponent.

¶26

6.The 1st opponent has filed an affidavit-in-

¶27

reply. In the said affidavit-in-reply he has
admitted the execution of the memorandum of
understanding recording a compromise between the
parties. He has stated that in view of settlement

¶28

¶29

he has no objection for quashing the Criminal
proceedings. He submitted that F.I.R was lodged
due to misunderstanding.

¶30

7.Perusal of the complaint filed by the 1st
opponent with the police shows that the same arose
out of commercial transaction between the Company
of the applicants and 1st opponent. The commercial
transaction was relating to the sale of goods.
Now, there is a complete settlement between the
parties which is reduced into writing in the form
of a memorandum of understanding.

¶31

8.Considering the aforesaid facts, it is
obvious that the chances of conviction are very
bleak. In view of settlement, no purpose will be
served by continuing the Criminal proceedings. In
the circumstances, this is a fit case for invoking
of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 for quashing the proceedings.

¶32

9.Hence, I pass the following order.

¶33

¶34

(i)The proceeding of Criminal case
No.855/P/2003 pending before the learned
Magistrate, Mazgaon, is quashed.

¶35

(ii)There will be no order as to costs.

¶36

(A.S.OKA, J.)

Mohan Kumar Rayana and Anr. v. Rajendraprasad Rameshwarlal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Kumar Rayana and Anr. v. Rajendraprasad Rameshwarlal and Ors.

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

M/S. Bhawani Builders through Its Proprietor andANR Vs Prashant Vishnupant Ladkat, and Others .

Shri Mrinal Jaswant Singh Bali . Vs the State of Maharashtra .

Mohd. Jahangir Shiakh Vs Executive Engineer, Bandra Div. M.H.D.A. and Ors.

Mr. Sadik Hussain Dolaria . Vs Jamila Sadik Dolaria and 05 Others.

Cyrus G.Mazkoori Vs Nagir Bharucha @ Nargis Ganeshprasad Gupta and Anr.

Sharp Industries Ltd.and Ors. Vs Dic India Ltd. and Anr.