Allowed

Harpreet Singh B. Suri v. Pradeep M. Doshi and Anr.

Bombay HC19 Dec 2014REVN/229/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court revoked conviction and sentence on Section 138 of NI Act after parties filed consent terms showing lawful compounding. Application was disposed of, applicant declared clean, and directed to pay Rs. 15,000 as costs.

What did the court decide?

Judgment and order of conviction set aside; applicant acquitted; bail bonds cancelled; applicant directed to pay Rs. 15,000 as costs.

Harpreet Singh B. Suri Vs Pradeep M. Doshi and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

REVN 229-14.odt

¶2

Anand

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

REVISION APPLICATION NO.229 OF 2014
WITH

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.179 OF 2014
(For Bail)
IN

¶6

REVISION APPLICATION NO.229 OF 2014

¶7

WITH

¶8

REVISION APPLICATION NO.230 OF 2014

¶9

WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.180 OF 2014

¶10

(For Bail)
IN

¶11

REVISION APPLICATION NO.230 OF 2014

¶12

Harpreet Singh B. Suri.Applicant

¶13

 V/s.

¶14

Pradeep M. Doshi & anr..Respondents

¶15

Mr.Vivek Patil, Advocate, for the Applicant
Mr.Ashok Bhatiya, Advocate, for the Respondent
No.1

¶16

Mrs G.P.Mulyekar, APP, for the Respondent No.2
- State

¶17

CORAM:P.D.KODE, J.
DATE:19TH DECEMBER, 2014

¶18

P.C.

¶19

.Heard.

¶20

2.By the aforesaid applications in

¶21

Page 1 of 5

¶22

REVN 229-14.odt

¶23

revision, the original accused in SCC Nos.242
& 243 of 2011 in the Court of the Judicial
Magistrate F.C., Vashi, CBD Belapur has
assailed the Judgment and Order passed by the
trial Court convicting him for the commission
of the offence punishable under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and
sentencing him to suffer R.I. for two months
as detailed out in the Judgment annexed with
the revision application and so also
confirming of the said sentence by the
Appellate Court by dismissing an Appeal
preferred by him to the Court of Sessions at
Thane except making a minor modification of
making substantive sentence of imprisonment as
S.I. instead of R.I. as ordered by the trial
Court.

¶24

3.Before the matter is taken up for

¶25

admission of this application in revision, the
parties have tendered the Joint Consent Terms

¶26

Page 2 of 5

¶27

REVN 229-14.odt

¶28

for both cases. Parties present before the
Court today have been identified by their
respective Advocates. They admit correctness
of the matters stated in the said Consent
Terms.

¶29

4.A perusal of the said Consent Terms
does not reveal any of the conditions or terms
mentioned in the Consent Terms either contrary
to the law or against the public policy.

¶30

5.Thus, the Consent Terms submitted

¶31

reveal that parties have lawfully compounded
the matter i.e. commission of the offence
punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 by the revision
applicant, which is compoundable. Hence, the
Judgment and Order of conviction passed by the
trial Court and maintained by the Appellate
Court cannot be legally sustained and hence,
the same stands quashed and set aside, the

¶32

Page 3 of 5

¶33

REVN 229-14.odt

¶34

applicant stands acquitted from the accusation
of having committed the offence punishable

¶35

under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 in both cases. In view

¶36

of the composition of offence bail bonds,
surety bonds, if any executed, stands
cancelled.

¶37

6.However, as the decision in the case

¶38

Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H.
reported in 2010(5) SCC 663 reveals that if
such cases are compounded at higher stage then
the parties must pay costs. The applicant is
directed to pay costs of Rs.15,000/- within a
period of four weeks from the date of this
order to the High Court Legal Aid Committee,
Mumbai. Needless to add, the aforesaid order
to become effective only after payment of
costs as ordered. In the event of failure of
the applicant to pay costs, the matters stand
automatically revived.

¶39

Page 4 of 5

¶40

REVN 229-14.odt

¶41

7.In view of the Consent Terms, the

¶42

respondent No.1 is entitled to withdraw the
amount deposited by the applicant in the Court
and as agreed in the said Consent Terms. The

¶43

applicant shall also pay further amount as
stated in the said Consent Terms today only.
After passing of this order, learned counsel
for the applicant submitted that he had paid
the amount and learned counsel for the
respondent No.1 has supported his said
statement.

¶44

8.The Revision Applications stand
disposed of accordingly.

¶45

9.In view of disposal of the Revision
Applications, the Criminal Applications (For
Bail) do not survive and the same stand
disposed of accordingly.

¶46

(P.D.KODE, J.)

¶47

Page 5 of 5

Harpreet Singh B. Suri v. Pradeep M. Doshi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harpreet Singh B. Suri v. Pradeep M. Doshi 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shakil Gulab Sambhapure Vs Nandkumar Dhondiram Kothavale and Anr.

Yogesh Maruti Linge Vs the State of Maharashtra

Daji Satyawan Shelake and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Tanaji Mahadev Sagar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Prabhakar @ Prabhu Babaru Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra

Azharul Islam Mohd. Ibrahim Siddiqui Vs the State of Maharashtra