Allowed

Rajendra Mahadev Mali v. the Venkateshewra Co. Op Bank Ltd. and Anr.

Bombay HC29 Nov 2011APPR/277/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court of Bombay allowed compounding of an offence under the Negotiable Instruments Act following a settlement of dues. The court quashed prior orders and condoned a delay in filing the application.

What did the court decide?

The offence was allowed to be compounded; impugned orders were quashed; rule made absolute; delay in filing application was condoned.

Rajendra Mahadev Mali Vs the Venkateshewra Co. Op Bank Ltd… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

mst

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (ST) NO.325 OF 2011

¶5

Rajendra Mahadeo Mali versus

¶6

The Venkateshwara Co-op. Bank Ltd. and others

¶7

Applicant

¶8

Respondents

¶9

Mr.Amit Mane h/f S.P.Kadam for applicant. Mr.Shrikant Yadav for respondent no.1. Mr.D.P.More, APP for State.

¶10

CORAM : R.V.MORE, J.

¶11

DATE : 29^th November 2011

¶12

PC :

¶13

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

¶14

The petitioner has filed present revision application challenging his conviction under provisions of Section 138 r/w Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as confirmed by the Lower Appellate Court in appeal. By the said judgment, the petitioner was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and was also held liable to pay compensation of Rs.1.00 lakh to respondent no.1 bank. Subsequent to the impugned order passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court, the applicant has, on 8th October 2010 approached the respondent no.1 bank and settled all the dues of the bank and on 31st March 2011, the cash credit facility given to the applicant by respondent no.1 bank has been finally closed. Thus, the dispute between the parties is now amicably settled.

¶15

First respondent bank has filed affidavit reiterating the settlement of

¶16

¶17

dispute and further stating that the respondent no.1 has no objection for compounding the offence. It is also stated in the affidavit that as of today there is no dues payable by the applicant to respondent no.1 bank.

¶18

In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab (2008)4-SCC-582, I find that no purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending except burdening the Criminal Courts which are already overburdened. Accordingly, in view of provisions of Section 147 of the said Act, the offence against the applicant is allowed to be compounded. The impugned orders dated 3rd January 2009 and 13th September 2010 passed by learned JMFC, Ichalkaranji and learned Sessions Judge in CC No.6164 of 1998 and Criminal Application No.39 of 2010 respectively are quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (c). Bail bond, if any, stands cancelled.

¶19

¶20

mst

¶21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶22

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.277 OF 2011 IN

¶23

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (ST) NO.325 OF 2011

¶24

Rajendra Mahadeo Mali

¶25

Applicant

¶26

versus

¶27

The Venkateshwara Co-op. Bank Ltd. and others

¶28

Respondents

¶29

Mr.Amit Mane h/f S.P.Kadam for applicant. Mr.Shrikant Yadav for respondent no.1. Mr.D.P.More, APP for State.

¶30

CORAM : R.V.MORE, J.

¶31

DATE : 29^th November 2011

¶32

PC :

¶33

The application is filed for condonation of delay of 177 days in filing the revision application. The learned advocate for respondent no.1 has no objection if delay is condoned. In view of the concession given by learned counsel for respondent no.1 and for the reasons stated in the application, delay is condoned. Criminal Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b).

¶34

(R.V.MORE, J.)

Rajendra Mahadev Mali v. the Venkateshewra Co. Op Bank Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Mahadev Mali v. the Venkateshewra Co. Op Bank Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashwinee Avinash Baokar Vs Laxman Iyer and Ors.

Sukhdev Shankar MANE0 Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ajay Ganesh Ubale Vs Shobhana Bhartia and Ors.

Bahgwan Chander Gaikar Vs Union of India and Anr.

Rajendra Mahadev Mali Vs the Venkateshewra Co. Op Bank Ltd. and Anr.

Union of India Vs Ashok C. Mehta and Ors.