Allowed

Ranjit Sham Chougule and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC16 Aug 2017APPR/45/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge allowed criminal revision applications wherein parties settled the dispute regarding cheque dishonour. The court granted leave to compound the offence, acquitted the accused, acquitted the respondents, quashed the previous conviction orders, and directed the restitution of bail deposits and payment of compensation per the consent terms.

What did the court decide?

Revision allowed; orders quashed; accused acquitted; Rs.15 Lakhs paid to complainant via bank pay order; bail amount of Rs.3 Lakhs refunded; accused No.2 to pay costs of Rs.25,000 to Tata Memorial Can

Ranjit Sham Chougule and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

903_appr_45_2017.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.51 OF 2017 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.45 OF 2017 IN

¶3

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.51 OF 2017

¶4

Ranjit Sham Chougule & Ors.

¶5

...Applicants

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents

¶8

WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.116 OF 2017

¶9

IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (ST) NO.124 OF 2017 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (ST) NO.124 OF 2017

¶10

Ashoka Pipe Mfg. Company Through POA Rakesh Jain

¶11

...Applicants

¶12

Versus

¶13

Ranjit Sham Chougule & Ors.

¶14

...Respondents

¶15

Mr. Satyavrat Joshi i/b. M/s. Vidhi Partners for the Applicants in APPR/45/2017, REVN/51/2017.

¶16

Mr. Santosh D. Thakur for the Respondent No.4 and Applicant in APPR/116/2017 and APPR/117/2017.

¶17

Mr. P.H. Gaikwad, APP for the Respondent -State.

¶18

CORAM : SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.

¶19

DATED : 16^th AUGUST, 2017.

¶20

P.C.:-

¶21

The Applicants in Criminal Revision Application No.51 of

¶22

2017 were the accused whereas the Applicant in Criminal Revision

¶23

Megha

¶24

1/6

¶25

903_appr_45_2017.doc

¶26

Application (st) No.124 of 2017 was the complainant in C.C. No.36955/SS/2009, on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 7th Court, Dadar, Mumbai and they shall be hereinafter referred to as the accused and the complainant respectively.

¶27

The accused have filed the Criminal Revision Application No.51 of 2017 challenging their conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Whereas the complainant has filed Criminal Revision Application (st) No.124 of 2017 challenging clause 4 of the order dated 21.10.2016 in Criminal Appeal No.1039 of 2014 whereby accused Nos.4 and 5 have been exempted from paying any compensation to the complainant.

¶28

The learned counsels for the accused and the complainant in their respective revision applications have submitted that during the pendency of these revisions, the complainant and accused have settled the dispute amicably. They have placed on record the consent terms which read as under :

¶29

CONSENT TERMS

¶30

“The parties to this revision application have agreed and resolved to

¶31

Megha

¶32

2/6

¶33

903_appr_45_2017.doc

¶34

settle their disputes on the following terms and conditions:

¶35

The Petitioner Ranjit Sham Chougule undertakes to this

¶36

Hon'ble Court to pay a total sum of Rs.15,00,000/(Rupees Fifteen Lacs only) to the Respondent M/s. Ashoka Pipe Mfg. Company in the following manner :-

¶37

(i) At the time of signing and filing of this consent term in

¶38

this Hon'ble Court a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen Lacs only) by bank pay order No.491919 dated 18/04/2017 issued by Deutsche Bank at its Fort, Mumbai Brnach drawn in favour of Ashoka Pipe Mfg. Co.

¶39

(ii) A sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs only) being 20% of Trial Court amount of Rs.15,00,000/deposited by the Petitioner Ranjit Chougule in the Trial Court 7th Bhoiwada, Dadar, during the admission of appeal in Sessions Court, shall be refunded to Petitioner/Original accused Mr. Ranjit Sham Chougule. The Petitioner Ranjit Chougule undertakes to this Hon'ble Court that he has not encumbered the said amount of deposit of sum of Rs.3,00,000/(Rupees Three Lacs only) in any manner or withdrawn

¶40

Megha

¶41

3/6

¶42

903_appr_45_2017.doc

¶43

by him or anyone claiming under or through him from the Trial Court and remains to be with the Trial Court.

¶44

The Trial Court 7th Bhoiwada, Dadar, be directed to refund the Bail amount to the petitioners/original accused, paid by them at the time of first appearances in C.C. No.36955/SS/2009.

¶45

The Judgment of Conviction passed by Trial Court in C.C. No.36955/SS/2009 dated 18.09.2014 and Judgment of Sessions Court dated 21/10/2016 in Criminal Appeal No.1039 of 2014 be set aside and the Petitioners/Original Accused be acquitted/discharge.

¶46

The parties hereto agree that on fulfillment of the above mentioned terms and conditions, the above mentioned revision application stands disposed off.

¶47

Parties agreed to bear their own cost.”

¶48

The power of attorney, which is annexed to the consent terms indicates that the complainant has been authorised to enter into a compromise. The consent terms have been signed by accused No.2 as well as the attorney of the complainant and their respective Advocates. The respective parties and their counsels have confirmed

¶49

Megha

¶50

4/6

¶51

903_appr_45_2017.doc

¶52

that the terms are agreeable to them. The terms are taken on record and marked 'x' for identification. The undertaking given by the respective parties are accepted.

¶53

Since the parties have arrived at amicable settlement in terms of the consent terms, leave is granted to compound the offence. Hence, the following order :-

¶54

ORDER

¶55

(i) The Revision Applications are allowed in terms of the consent terms. The order of the Special Judge(CBI)/The Addl. Sessions Judge, Gr. Bombay, dated 21.10.2016 and order of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 7th Court, Dadar, Mumbai, dated 16.9.2014 are quashed and set aside;

¶56

(ii) The accused are acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 r/w 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act;

¶57

(iii) The accused No.2 shall pay costs of Rs.25,000/- to Tata Memorial Cancer Hospital within a period of two weeks. If costs are not paid the impugned order shall stand recalled without further orders of this Court with consequences to follow;

¶58

Megha

¶59

5/6

¶60

903_appr_45_2017.doc

¶61

(iv) In terms of clause (ii) of paragraph (1) and clause (2) of the consent terms an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- deposited before the Trial Court towards cash surety be refunded to the accused No.2;

¶62

(v) All other applications stand disposed of;

¶63

(vi) Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

¶64

Stand over to 31.8.2017 for compliance.

¶65

(ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)

¶66

Megha

¶67

6/6

Ranjit Sham Chougule and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjit Sham Chougule 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

Vinod Gajraj Mehta Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Manda Harishchandra Gosavi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nilesh Ramchandra More Vs the State of Maharashtra

Yusuf M. Talwala Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Yusuf M. Talwala Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ranjit Sham Chougule and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.