Quashed

Seema Jobanputra and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Jul 2013WP/333/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two criminal writ petitions, the Court considered complaints regarding the discharge of accused and issuance of process in cheque bounce matters under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Both sets of wager litigation were resolved through settlement arrangements involving monetary compensation between the parties.

What did the court decide?

Prosecution under C.C. No.2436 of 2012 quashed and set aside; FWL petitioner directed to deposit Rs.25,000/- with High Court Legal Services Committee.

Seema Jobanputra and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

vrd 1 WP803/13

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.803 OF 2013

¶5

M/s Freyssinet Prestressed
Concrete Co.Ltd.

¶6

...Petitioners

¶7

v/s

¶8

State of Maharashtra and ors. ...Respondents

¶9

WITH

¶10

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.333 OF 2013

¶11

Seema Jobanputra and others ...Petitioners
v/s

¶12

State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents

¶13

Ms Pravina Kanani for Petitioners in WP No.803 of
2013 and for Respondent No.2 in WP No.333 2013.
Mr Chirag Shah i/b Ms Tulsi Selarka for Respondent
No.1 and 2 in WP 803 of 2013 and i/b M/s J.J. Shah
and Co. for Petitioners in WP No.333 of 2013.

¶14

CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL J.

¶15

DATED : 8TH JULY 2013.

¶16

P.C.:-

¶17

1.Heard. The original complainant questions

¶18

discharge of few respondents by the learned

¶19

Additional Sessions Judge, Thane in Revision
Application No.159 of 2012, the proceedings arising

¶20

vrd 2 WP803/13

¶21

out of section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶22

The original accused Nos.5 to 9 have also
questioned issuance of process by Writ Petition
No.333 of 2013.

¶23

2.The Court has, considering the nature of
controversies, status of the parties, business
relations and few of the accused applicants being
Engineers, suggested both the learned counsel to
ensure settlement. Parties had deliberations,
including Advocates, several options were discussed
and ultimately it is resolved between them as
under.

¶24

Rs.17,00,000/- by demand draft payable in the name

¶25

of complainant (M/s Freyssinet Prestressed Concrete

¶26

directly made by pay order / demand draft /
banker's cheque without demur.

¶27

4.Thelearnedcounselfor original

¶28

vrd 3 WP803/13

¶29

complainant (petitioner in writ petition No.803 of
2013) accepted the proposal in presence of Managing
Director of the Company – Mr Sanjay Kapur.
Consequently, the writ petitions are disposed off.
The prosecution vide C.C. No.2436 of 2012 pending
on the file of the learned JMFC, Thane is quashed
and set aside.

¶30

5.The writ petitioner Smt Seema or M/s Ashar

¶31

Co. shall deposit an amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees
Twenty Five Thousand only) with the High Court
Legal Services Committee at Mumbai within a week
from today. If payment schedule as referred above
is not complied with, needless to indicate, revival
of C.C. No.2436 of 2012 and initiating contempt
action against the original accused.

¶32

( K.U. CHANDIWAL J.)

Seema Jobanputra and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seema Jobanputra and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Chetan Dogra (Huf) Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Chetan Dogra (Huf) Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Chetan Dogra (Huf) Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Yuvraj Sudhakar Chumbalkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bapi Somnath Roy Vs the State of Maharashtra

Uttamdas Warluji Wankhede Vs Narayan Ramchandr Sorate and Anr.