Dismissed

Priti Ashish Patil v. Anil Barku Sopnawane and Anr.

Bombay HC26 Jul 2010WP/239/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay dismissed a writ petition challenging the trial court's refusal to quash a complaint under section 138 NI Act. The court held that mere deposit of cheque amount with interest is insufficient to quash a complaint. The petitioner was exempted from personal appearance with an undertaking regarding identity and future prosecution proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioner exempted from personal appearance; statement under section 313 to be recorded through advocate; deposited amount may be withdrawn.

Priti Ashish Patil Vs Anil Barku Sopnawane and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

1 W 239.08

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.239 OF 2008

¶4

Dr.Sau Priti Ashish Patil versus

¶5

Anil Barku Sonawane & Ors.

¶6

..Petitioner

¶7

..Respondents

¶8

Mr.Anilkumar Patil for the Petitioner. Mr.N.R.Bubna for respondent no.1. Mrs.M.R.Tidake APP for State.

¶9

CORAM : V.M.KANADE, J.

¶10

DATED : JULY 26, 2010.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and learned APP for the State.

¶13

The petitioner is the original accused in complaint filed by respondent no.1 for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. She filed an application in the trial Court in which she offerred her willingness to deposit an amount of Rs.6,25,000/- towards the amount of cheque and it was urged that the complaint filed against her have been dismissed. The trial Court, however, by its order dated 19.12.2007 dismissed the said application. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner. When the petition came up

¶14

2 W 239.08

¶15

for admission before my sister Smt.Mhatre, J., on 27th June, 2008 the petitioner’s counsel agreed to deposit the amount of Rs.8,30,000/- in the trial Court towards the amount of cheque and expenses incurred by the complainant alongwith the interest. The respondent thereafter was served. It is submitted that in view of the offer given by the petitioner the complaint may be quashed. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 submits that this offer is not acceptable to respondent no.1. This being position, it is not possible to accept the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. Merely depositing the amount due and payable under the cheque alongwith interest and cost would not be sufficient for quashing the complaint. Hence the writ petition is dismissed.

¶16

The petitioner, however, is exempted from appearing in the trial Court. The plea of the petitioner may be recorded through advocate and an undertaking be given by her that she will not dispute her identity. Similarly, her statement under section 313 be recorded through her advocate if similar undertaking is given. The amount deposited by the petitioner in the trial Court may be invested by the trial Court in any Nationalised Bank or if the petitioner desires she may withdraw it. The petition is disposed of.

¶17

(V.M.KANADE, J.)

Priti Ashish Patil v. Anil Barku Sopnawane and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priti Ashish Patil v. Anil Barku Sopnawane 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

Case details

Similar cases

Mithun @ Nitin Zumbar Kale and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mithun @ Nitin Zumbar Kale and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sanjay Tukaram Tonde Vs the State of Maharashtra

Soheb Abdul Reheman Khatri Vs Afrien Soheb Khatri and Anr.

Priti Ashish Patil Vs Anil Barku Sopnawane and Anr.

Vinod B Gupta Vs Chief Conservator of Forest and Anr.