Allowed

Anand Nilkanth Thosar v. Jayant Balkrishna Paranjape and Anr.

Bombay HC16 Dec 2011WP/1408/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a conviction under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Upon the parties resolving their dispute and depositing the settlement amount, the Court permitted compounding of the offence and directed reimbursement of the deposited funds.

What did the court decide?

Permission to compound the offence under section 138 read with section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was granted and the petition ruled absolute.

Anand Nilkanth Thosar Vs Jayant Balkrishna Paranjape and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

mst

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1408 OF 2008

¶5

Anand Nilkanth Thosar Petitioner versus Jayant Balkrishna Paranjape and another Respondents

¶6

Mr.M.S.Mhaispurkar i/by Ms.Vaibhavi Mhaispurkar for petitioner. Mr.A.D.Gangal with C.K.Pendse for respondent no.1. Mr.Rajesh More, APP for State.

¶7

CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J.

¶8

PC :

¶9

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

¶10

The above writ petition arises out of proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The petitioner was convicted by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 13th Court, Dadar, Mumbai and this conviction was confirmed by learned 5th Ad-hoc Sessions Judge, Mumbai vide order dated 8th April 2008. Therefore, the petitioner has filed present writ petition.

¶11

During pendency of the writ petition, a common application dated 16th December 2011 is filed by the petitioner and respondent no.1 in the above writ petition. They have stated that they have resolved their disputes against each other out of Court and they have decided to compromise and compound the offence. It is stated that the respondent no.1 has agreed to accept Rs.1.00 lakh towards full and final settlement of the dues. Pursuant thereto, said amount has been deposited by the

¶12

¶13

petitioner in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 13th Court, Dadar vide receipt no.0149096 dated 20.9.2008 for Rs.25,000/- and by receipt No.0159476 dated 24.11.2008 for Rs.75,000/-. The respondent no.1 has to make an application to the court of Metropolitan Magistrate for withdrawal of the said amount.

¶14

Petitioner and respondent no.1 are present in Court. On query they submit that the dispute has been resolved amicably and reiterated what is stated in the application dated 16th December 2011.

¶15

It can thus be seen that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. From the perusal of the complaint it would reveal that the allegations are totally personal in nature. There is no element of public law involved in the crime. In view of the facts and circumstances of the matter, a case for compounding the offence under section 138 read with section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 320(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure is made out.

¶16

Therefore, I pass following order :

¶17

(a) Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b);

¶18

(b) Permission to compound the offence under section 138 read with section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 320(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure is granted;

¶19

(c) The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 13th Court, Dadar, Mumbai is directed to reimburse the amounts under the above two receipts to respondent no.1 within a period of one week from the date of receipt of application for disbursement.

¶20

(RANJIT MORE, J.)

Anand Nilkanth Thosar v. Jayant Balkrishna Paranjape and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anand Nilkanth Thosar v. Jayant Balkrishna Paranjape 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

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Vs Nabokumar Gouli and Anr.

Anand Oberoi and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vodafone Essar Ltd. and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

S.K. Malik and Anr. Vs Rajan Gulrajani and Ors.

M/S. Corporate Couriers Ltd. and Ors. Vs M/S. Wall Street Finance Ltd.

Mrunal Anand Thosar Vs Jayant Balkrishna Paranjape and Anr.