Allowed

Sunil Suresh Unde v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Bombay HC20 Jun 2013REVN/72/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allowed two criminal revision applications challenging an appellate judgment in a cheque dishonour case. Upon confirmation of settlement before a mediator and payment of dues, the court set aside the challenged judgment, treated the offence as compounded, and acquitted the accused.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal No. 185 of 2004 and S.C.C. No. 4965 of 2001 set aside; offence treated as compounded; accused acquitted; bank guarantee of Rs. 5,50,000 returned.

Sunil Suresh Unde Vs the State of Mah and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

Cri.Revn.Appln. Nos. 3 & 72/10

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 3 OF 2010

¶5

Ramesh s/o. Champalal Kankaria

¶6

....Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra and Anr.

¶9

....Respondents.

¶10

Mr. P.R. Patil, Advocate for applicant. Mr. V.G. Shelke, APP for State.

¶11

Mr. D.V. Soman, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

¶12

WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 72 OF 2010

¶13

Sunil s/o. Suresh Unde

¶14

....Applicant.

¶15

Versus

¶16

The State of Maharashtra and Anr.

¶17

....Respondents.

¶18

Mr. D.V. Soman, Advocate for applicant. Mr. V.G. Shelke, APP for State.

¶19

Mr. P.R. Patil, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

¶20

CORAM : T. V. NALAWADE, J. DATED : 20th June, 2013.

¶21

ORDER :

¶22

Both the revisions are filed against the judgment and order of Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Criminal Appeal No. 185 of 2004. In the appeal filed by accused from criminal case filed under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the

¶23

Cri.Revn.Appln. Nos. 3 & 72/10

¶24

¶25

appellate Court has modified the order of J.M.F.C. This decision is challenged by the accused and also by the complainant in the two revisions.

¶26

The matter was referred to mediator and the parties have settled their matter before mediator. In these two proceedings, pursis is filed, which is signed by both the sides and their respective advocates. They have mentioned the terms of settlement. The complainant has requested for permission to compound the matter. It appears that the cheque amount has been paid by the accused.

¶27

In view of the aforesaid circumstances, both the proceedings are allowed. The judgments and orders of Criminal Appeal No. 185 of 2004 and S.C.C. No. 4965 of 2001, which was pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Aurangabad are set aside. The offence is treated as compounded and the accused stands acquitted. The bank guarantee obtained from the complainant in respect of the amount of Rs. 5,50,000/- (Rupees five lakhs fifty thousand) is to be returned to the complainant.

¶28

[ T. V. NALAWADE, J. ]

¶29

ssc/

Sunil Suresh Unde v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Suresh Unde v. the State of Mah 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

Digambar Laxman Gentyal Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Nazmoddin Jilani Gulam Shaikh and Ors. Vs Quresha Nisabat Najmoddin Gilani and Ors.

Sanjay Maruti Barbole Vs the State of Mah

Ramesh Champalal Kankaria Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rajendra Appa Patil and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Miss. Mehjabeen D/O Nisar Mohiuddin Farooqui Now Mehjabeen Syed Tafzilhashmi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another