Dismissed

Rajeshkumar Dewanchand Mehra v. Shivram Nivruti Wathore and Anr.

Bombay HC2 May 2011APPLN/568/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal application seeking leave to appeal against an acquittal under S. 138 NI Act, the High Court refused leave. It held that if a large liability of Rs.5,50,000 existed for which a cheque was issued, the Complainant's payment of Rs.25,000 in the intervening period remained inexplicable, legitimising the acquittal.

What did the court decide?

Leave to file appeal against the order of acquittal of the Respondent is refused.

Rajeshkumar Dewanchand Mehra Vs Shivram Nivruti Wathore and… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

mnm

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.___ OF 2010 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 568 OF 2010

¶5

Rajeshkumar Dewanchand Mehra Vs. Shivram Nivruti Wathore & Anr.

¶6

...Applicant

¶7

...Respondents

¶8

Mr. Rathore Sunil Kumar i/b. Mr. I.S. Thakur, Advocate for Applicant Smt. A.A. Mane, A.P.P for the State Ms. Rani S. for Respondent No.1

¶9

CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 2^ND MAY, 2011

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

This is an application for leave to file appeal against the order of acquittal of the Respondent passed by the learned Magistrate upon the criminal prosecution under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 for dishonour of a cheque of Rs.5,50,000/-. The accused has been acquitted on the ground that there was no pending liability for which there could have been a legally enforceable debt, which the applicant could have enforced against the accused.

¶12

The parties have admitted the fact of certain previous transactions and previous litigation. The dishonoured cheque is stated to be given for loans and advances made from time to time by the Complainant to the

¶13

Accused between December 2005 and May 2006. The Complainant claims that certain vouchers have been issued. In the earlier litigation the Accused had sought to prosecute the Complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act under a dishonour of cheque. That litigation came to be compromised on 14^th August 2006. The Complainant herein paid Rs.25,000/- which was the amount of the dishonoured cheque. Hence the Complainant herein paid the entire principal amount of the liability.

¶14

If the liability of the accused arose between December 2005 and May 2006 to the extent of Rs.5,50,000/- for which the accused issued a cheque dated 21^st November 2006, the payment by the Complainant himself in between that period on 14^th August 2006 cannot be explained. The Complainant would never be paid further amount of Rs.25,000/after the large amount of Rs.5,50,000/- was due and payable. Hence the acquittal is proper. Leave to appeal is refused.

¶15

(SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)

Rajeshkumar Dewanchand Mehra v. Shivram Nivruti Wathore and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeshkumar Dewanchand Mehra v. Shivram Nivruti Wathore 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

Standard Chartered Bank Vs Sunil Gupta

Paresh Ghanshyam Dahiwal Vs M/S. Harishchandra Farming Project Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Narasgonda Annaso Patil Vs Eisak Kammrudina Belif and Anr.

Mstc Limited Vs Omega Petrochemicals and Ors.

Vishnu Shridhar Adnaik Vs Virendra Gajanan Powar and Anr.

Anil Dattatrya Taware Vs M/S. D.K. Builders and Developers