Allowed

Lilesh Suryakant Kalsekar v. Shobha Pol and Anr.

Bombay HC28 Jun 2017REVN/265/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant challenged conviction for cheque dishonour. After establishing settlement of disputed cheques totaling Rs. 4,00,000, the court accepted consent terms, quashed prior convictions and orders, and acquitted the applicant in related pending cases.

What did the court decide?

The conviction and orders were quashed; the applicant was acquitted in second and first complaints; release from custody granted if applicable.

Lilesh Suryakant Kalsekar Vs Shobha Pol and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

57-revn-265-2017.odt

¶2

rrpillai

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 265 OF 2017

¶4

Mr. Lilesh Suryakant Kalsekar … Applicant vs. Mrs. Shoba Pol & Ors. … Respondents

¶5

Mrs. G. Geetha i/b. H. Kumar Vaidyanathan for the Applicant. Mr. Vishnu L. Chaudhari i/b. Shaikh Shaikhlal Basu.

¶6

Mr. Vinod Chate, APP for the State.

¶7

P.C.:

¶8

By this Criminal Revision Application the applicant has challenged the judgment and order dated 1st February, 2017 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1129 of 2014 by the Additional Sessions Judge whereby the conviction of the applicant for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was confirmed.

¶9

It appears that parties have since settled their disputes in the said complaint before the Magistrate Court. The amount of cheque in respect of offences complained was filed in relation to two cheques of Rs. 1,00,000/- each totaling to Rs. 2,00,000/- in C.C. No. 4881 of 2009.

¶10

However in a separate complaint being C.C. No.4876/SS/2009 the issue involved failure to honour another cheques amounting to Rs. 2,00,000/-. The consent terms tendered today deal with both complaints which according to

¶11

1/3

¶12

57-revn-265-2017.odt

¶13

learned counsel for the parties are identical. The statement is accepted.

¶14

In the consent terms parties have recorded an overall settlement of the disputes arising out of non payment of these four cheques totaling to Rs.4,00,000/-. Consent terms record that the applicant has made payment of Rs. 4,00,000/- as set out in clause 2(b) and 2(c) to the original complainantrespondent who is present in Court and who confirms having arrived at settlement and have accepted the above amount in full and final settlement towards discharge of the liability. The applicant has no objection to the offence being compounded and the impugned orders of the trial Court in C.C. No. 4881/SS/2009 and the Sessions Court being set aside. It is further stated that the trial in C.C. No.4876/SS/2009 presently pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate Court 58th Court, Bandra has not concluded. The applicant has no objection to the said case before the 58th Court being disposed of by presenting copy of these consent terms along with an authenticated copy of this oder before that Court.

¶15

It further appears that the applicant / accused has deposited certain money in the trial Court and the present respondent- Original complainant has no objection in the applicant / accused withdrawing the said amount/(s) which were deposited at the time of suspension of the sentence. In view of the settlement arrived at, I pass the following order :

¶16

2/3

¶17

57-revn-265-2017.odt

¶18

(i) In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties the above Revision Application is disposed of in terms of the consent terms.

¶19

(ii) Undertakings contained in the consent terms are accepted.

¶20

(iii) The offence having being compounded the conviction in C.C. No.4881/SS/2009 and the order dated 7th November, 2014 passed therein and the judgment dated 1st February, 2017 passed in Criminal Appeal no.1129 of 2014 by the Sessions Court are hereby quashed and set aside.

¶21

(iv) The applicant is acquitted in C.C.No.4876/SS/2009 and C.C.No.4881/SS/2009 before the 58th Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bandra.

¶22

(v) The applicant shall pay costs of Rs. 4000/- to the Maharashtra Legal Services Authority within one week from the date this order is uploaded. If costs are not paid the impugned order will revive without further orders of this court.

¶23

(vi) If the applicant is in custody, he shall be released. Parties including the jail authorities to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

¶24

(vii) Stand over on 10th July, 2017 for compliance.

¶25

(A. K. MENON, J.)

¶26

3/3

Lilesh Suryakant Kalsekar v. Shobha Pol and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lilesh Suryakant Kalsekar v. Shobha Pol 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

Prashant Mohan Padloskar Vs Lalita Prashant Padloskar and Ors.

Vijayshankar Ambika Prasad Tripathi Vs Milestone Trusteeship Services Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Jasmin Bhogilal Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Antim Bhagwandas Totla Vs the State of Maharashtraa and Anr.

Vinod Ashok Bhoite Vs Akshara Vinod Bhoite and Anr.

Kedari Shamrao Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra