Allowed

Shivkumar S/O Anandrao Nilgirwar v. the State of Maharashtra and Other

Bombay HC30 Mar 2015WP/1155/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the original complainant to quash a clause in the Sessions Judge's revision order. The clause directed the Income Tax Department to enquire into tax payments related to a compounded cheque dispute, which the Court found unwarranted.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; Rule made absolute; Clause '03' of the order dated 4th September, 2014, quashed and set aside.

Shivkumar S/O Anandrao Nilgirwar Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

WP1155.2014

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1155 OF 2014

¶5

Shivkumar S/o Anandrao Nilgirwar, Age 40 years, Occ. Service, R/o House No. 9/24, Velmapura, Kinwat, Tq. Kinwat, Dist. Nanded.

¶6

... Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra.

¶9

Sow. Kiran s/o Laxmikant Sundargirwar, Age 50 years, Occ. Business, R/o Chetna Kirana & Ladies Emporium, Old Cloth Line, Kinwat, Tq. Kinwat, District Nanded. ... Respondents

¶10

Shri. Ravindra B. Ade, Advocate for the petitioner Shri. S. G. Nandedkar, APP for respondent/State Shri. Ashish B. Shinde, Advocate for respondent No. 2

¶11

CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J. DATED : MARCH 30^TH , 2015.

¶12

ORAL JUDGMENT:-

¶13

. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith

¶14

with the consent of the parties.

¶15

The present petitioner happens to be the original complainant in S.C.C. No. 335 of 2012, filed by the petitioner

¶16

WP1155.2014

¶17

-2-

¶18

against respondent No. 2, for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short “the NIA”). On 3^rd April, 2014, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, seized with the matter, was apprised of the fact that there was every possibility of amicable settlement and hence, the learned JMFC was pleased to refer the matter to the Mediator. The complainant and the accused had consented for going through the process of mediation. On 14^th July, 2014, the learned JMFC had observed that, the accused had not compounded the case since 24^th July, 2014, within two-three dates from hearing and hence she was saddled with penalty of 10% of cheque amount. The learned JMFC had disposed of the complaint, acquitted the accused of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NIA. The accused was directed to pay penalty of 10% of cheque till 30^th July, 2014.

¶19

Being aggrieved by the said order, the original accused had filed Criminal Revision Application No. 72 of 2014. The learned Sessions Judge, Nanded, vide judgment and order dated 4^th September, 2014, was pleased to allow

¶20

WP1155.2014 -3-

¶21

the revision and set aside the order dated 14^th July, 2014. The learned Sessions Judge had further passed an order as follows:

¶22

“The Ld. Magistrate shall direct Income Tax Department to enquire whether respondent/complainant has paid Income Tax on the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- allegedly paid to the petitioner for which the disputed cheque was issued.”

¶23

Being aggrieved by clause '03' of the operative order dated 4^th September, 2014, the original complainant has filed the present writ petition.

¶24

The learned Counsel for the petitioner rightly submits that, the proceedings under Section 138 of the NIA were compromised between the parties. The complainant had withdrawn the complaint in good faith to continue to have good relations with the accused – respondent. It was not necessary for the learned Sessions Judge to enquire as to whether the said amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- was even disclosed to the Income Tax Authorities as, that would be a matter of evidence, which would be subject matter of the

¶25

WP1155.2014 -4-

¶26

trial under Section 138 of the NIA. In the present case, the said direction is unwarranted. It was a private transaction.

¶27

In the eventuality that the said amount is not disclosed in Income Tax Returns, the Income Tax Authority would take appropriate action in accordance with law as and when time arises. The direction passed by the Sessions Judge was without any jurisdiction and was not in consonance with any provisions of law and hence, the said clause '03' of the order dated 4^th September, 2014, deserves to be quashed and set aside. In view of this, following order is passed.

¶28

ORDER

¶29

(i) The Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause 'B)' of the petition.

¶30

Rule made absolute in above terms with no order as to costs. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶31

( SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J. )

¶32

sgp

Shivkumar S/O Anandrao Nilgirwar v. the State of Maharashtra and Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivkumar S/O Anandrao Nilgirwar v. the State of Maharashtra and Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhanraj S/O Shankar Giri Vs Chandrakala W/O Dhanraj Giri and Others

Mangalsingh Amarsingh Bais Vs the State of Mah.

Laxman Kacharu Mote Vs State of Maha and Ors.

Lahu S/O Raosaheb Gangawane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Anil S/O Devanna Kanlod and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shivraj Narayan Telange Vs Somnath Dadarao Bhosale