Dismissed

Nivrutti Sarjerao Devre v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC21 Sept 2017APPLN/2840/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application sought leave to appeal against an acquittal on Section 138 NI Act charges. The High Court rejected the application, finding the applicant failed to substantiate a legally enforceable debt for the cheque amount, noting lack of agreement on compensation and unclear liability.

What did the court decide?

Application for leave to file appeal against acquittal was rejected.

Nivrutti Sarjerao Devre Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

907-cra-2840-2016.odt

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

907 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2840 OF 2016

¶5

NIVRUTTI SARJERAO DEVRE

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

¶8

Mr. S.J. Rahate h/f Mr. S.G. Ladda, Advocate for Applicant. Mrs. V.N. Patil Jadhav, APP for Respondent No. 1-State. Mr. G.A. Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.

¶9

CORAM : A. M. DHAVALE, J. DATED : 21.09.2017

¶10

ORDER :-

¶11

Heard learned counsel Mr. S.J. Rahate for the

¶12

Applicant and learned counsel Mr. G.A. Kulkarni for the Respondent No. 2.

¶13

This is an Application seeking leave to file appeal

¶14

against acquittal. The Respondent No. 2 is acquitted of offence

¶15

punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act,

¶16

1881 (for short hereinafter referred as “the Act”) by the Judicial

¶17

Magistrate First Class, Aurangabad, on the ground that the cheque amount was not for legally enforceable debt. After perusal of the record and proceedings, it is found that the cheque

¶18

907-cra-2840-2016.odt

¶19

(2)

¶20

was of Rs. 4,10,000/-. It shows many over writings and attestation at the figure of cheque amount. Apart from it, the documents on record and the arguments disclose that the cheque was issued for repayment of sale condition as the transaction was canceled. The initial agreement to sell was for Rs. 1,40,000/- and the sale deed executed by maternal uncle of Respondent No. 2 by a notarized documents at Exhibit-21 shows receipt of Rs. 2,60,000/- by maternal uncle of the accused and not by the accused.

¶21

The learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the balance amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- is towards the compensation. The cross-examination of the complainant shows that there was no agreement between him and the accused regarding payment of Rs. 4,10,000/-. He has not given any details regarding compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-. In absence of such agreement, the cheque amount of Rs. 4,10,000/- cannot be said to be entirely towards the legally enforceable debt. It is also not clear whether the accused was liable or his maternal uncle was liable, because acknowledgment of Rs. 2,60,000/- is given by maternal uncle.

¶22

907-cra-2840-2016.odt

¶23

(3)

¶24

In view of above facts, there is no merits in challenge

¶25

to the acquittal on the ground of absence of legally enforceable

¶26

debt. Hence, the Application deserves to be rejected, it is

¶27

accordingly rejected.

¶28

[A. M. DHAVALE, J]

¶29

Sam..

Nivrutti Sarjerao Devre v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nivrutti Sarjerao Devre v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Sudhakar Baburao Ingle Vs the State of Maharashtra

Yuvraj Chango Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ginyandeo Shrirang Phad and Ors. Vs State of Maha

Maharudra S/O Jijaba Gadekar Vs Mohan S/O Sukhdev Padwal

Manjur Pragat Shetkari Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Vs Baburao Kashinath Kharde.

Kantilal Ratanlal Chavan Vs Dudhnath Ramdas Chavan