Allowed

Jai Jyotawali Steel Pvt. Ltd., and Ors. v. a. Navinchandra Infrarealty Ltd. and Anr.

Bombay HC18 Jan 2017REVN/216/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision application challenging a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the High Court of Bombay quashed the lower court orders. The court accepted a compromise and consent terms presented by the parties, who had settled the matter amicably. Consequently, the applicants were acquitted, and those in jail were set at liberty.

What the court decided

AI extract

Jai Jyotawali Steel Pvt. Ltd., and Ors. Vs a. Navinchandra… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

901-REVN-216-2016.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.216 OF 2016

¶5

JAI JYOTAWALI STEEL PVT. LTD. & ORS. )...APPLICANTS

¶6

V/s.

¶7

A. NAVINCHANDRA INFRAREALTY LTD. ) AND ANR. )...RESPONDENTS

¶8

Mr.Bhavesh Thakur i/b. Mr.Omprakash Dubey, Advocate for the Applicant.

¶9

Mr.S.P.Pandey, Advocate for the Respondent No.1.

¶10

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

¶11

CORAM : A. M. BADAR, J. DATE : 18^th JANUARY 2017.

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

1 This is a revision application by the original accused challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Greater Bombay, Mumbay, on 9^th March 2016 rejecting their Criminal Appeal bearing no.973 of 2014. By that appeal, revisional applicants / original accused had challenged the judgment and

¶14

avk 1/4

¶15

901-REVN-216-2016.doc

¶16

order dated 19^th September 2014 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 50^th Court, Vikhroli, Mumbai, convicting them of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned trial court upon convicting revisional applicants / accused had directed revisional applicant no.1 / original accused no.1 to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, revisional applicant nos.2 and 3 / original accused nos.2 and 3 were sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months, apart from payment of compensation of Rs.42 Lakh to the respondent / original complainant within a period of one month.

¶17

2 Heard the learned counsel appearing for revisional applicants / accused as well as respondent / original complainant. I have also heard the learned APP. The learned advocate appearing for revisional applicants as well as the learned advocate appearing for respondent no.1 / original complainant have unanimously stated that both parties have settled the matter amicably out of court and have drawn Consent Terms. They have presented the Consent Terms annexing copy of Resolution passed

¶18

avk 2/4

¶19

901-REVN-216-2016.doc

¶20

by respondent no.1 / original complainant authorizing Accounts Manager Mr.Mahesh Lalit Heliya to withdraw the complaint etc. Mr.Mahesh Heliya, Accounts Manager of respondent no.1 / original complainant is present before the court and he is duly identified by the learned advocate appearing for respondent no.1. Upon being asked, Mr.Mahesh Heliya, Account Manager, has stated that respondent no.1 has decided to settle the matter and it has no objection if the impugned judgments and orders passed by the lower courts are quashed and set aside.

¶21

3 Duly signed Consent Terms are taken on record and marked Exhibit “X” for the purpose of identification.

¶22

4 The offence alleged and proved against revisional applicants / original accused is one punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Parties have amicably settled the dispute out of court. In this view of the matter, the compromise arrived at by the parties needs to be accepted and by consent, impugned judgments and orders are required to be

¶23

avk 3/4

¶24

901-REVN-216-2016.doc

¶25

quashed. As such the order :

¶26

i) The revision application is disposed of in terms of Consent Terms marked as Exhibit “X”.

¶27

ii) By consent, impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 50^th Court, Vikhroli, Mumbai, on 19^th September 2014 in Criminal Case No.2264/SS/2013 and the appellate judgment and order passed on 9^th March 2016 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Greater Bombay, Mumbai, in Criminal Appeal No.973 of 2014 are quashed and set aside.

¶28

iii)Revisional applicants / original accused stand acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. If any of the revisional applicants / accused is in jail, he be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.

¶29

iv)Parties to act on authenticated copy of this order.

¶30

avk 4/4

Jai Jyotawali Steel Pvt. Ltd., and Ors. v. a. Navinchandra Infrarealty Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Jai Jyotawali Steel Pvt. Ltd., and Ors. v. a. Navinchandra Infrarealty Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anuja Sunil Prabhu Vs Sunil Shridhar Prabhu and Ors.

Amar @ Pandya Vithal Paskanthi and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra

Amar @ Pandya Vithal Paskanthi and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra

Prashant Shivaji Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sachin Ananda Todkar and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra

Shahu Ramakant Sarvgaud Vs the State of Maharashtra