Allowed

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

Bombay HC10 Jul 2017REVN/54/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed criminal revision applications in cheque dishonour cases where the applicants settled with the complainant and paid the agreed sum. The court quashed lower court orders and acquitted the applicants conditioned on the discharge of costs to the Legal Services Authority.

What did the court decide?

Revision applications allowed; lower court orders quashed; applicants acquitted; undertaking accepted; applicants to pay Rs. 15,000/- costs to Legal Services Authority.

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

¶1

12-appr-116-2017.odt

¶2

rrpillai

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 54 OF 2017

¶4

WITH

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 48 OF 2017

¶6

Ranjit Sham Chougule and Ors. … Applicants vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondent

¶7

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 117 OF 2017

¶8

¶9

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (ST) NO. 125 OF 2017

¶10

Manju Jain through … Applicant POA Rakesh Jain

¶11

vs.

¶12

The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondent

¶13

Mr. Santosh D. Thakur for the Applicant in APPR/117/2017 in REVN(ST)/125/2017

¶14

Mr. Satyavrat Joshi i/b. M/s.Vidhi Partners for Respondent no.2 in APPR/117/2017 in REVN(ST)/125/2017 and for applicant in Revn/54/2017 a/w. APPR/48/2017

¶15

Mr. S. V. Gavand, APP for the State. Mr. Aithe, Company Prosecutor present in Court.

¶16

CORAM : A. K. MENON, J. DATE : 10 th JULY, 2017

¶17

P.C.:

¶18

By this Criminal Application the applicant has challenged the judgment and order dated 21st October, 2016 passed by the Sessions Judge dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 1042 of 2014 while upholding the judgment and order

¶19

1/4

¶20

12-appr-116-2017.odt

¶21

dated 19th September, 2014 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate 7th Court Dadar in C.C. No. 42214/SS/2009.

¶22

The Magistrate's Court convicted the applicant of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Meanwhile the company which had issued the cheque was ordered to be wound up. Certain amounts have been deposited by the applicant before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 7th Court, Dadar. In the meanwhile, the applicant in Revision application no. 54 of 2017 has arrived at a settlement with the original complainant and it is agreed between them entire dispute will be settled for a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- .

¶23

Consent terms dated 10th July, 2017 have been tendered today. Consent terms have been signed on behalf of respondent no. 4 who is the original complainant by her constituted attorney one Mr. Rakesh Jain. Mr. Rakesh Jain is present and he states that the original complainant is his wife. Both parties Advocates state that the entire sum of Rs.15,00,000/- has been paid over.

¶24

In the circumstances, offences being compoundable it is appropriate that this revision application be allowed. Since the amount has been paid over now, it is agreed between the parties that the amount deposited in the trial Court by the original accused will be paid over to applicant(s) by the trial Court in C.C. No. 42214/SS/2009.

¶25

2/4

¶26

12-appr-116-2017.odt

¶27

The company being in liquidation, the official liquidator is also been given notice of this application. The Company prosecutor is present in Court. He states on instructions that the Liquidator's office has no objection to the aforesaid settlement which is arrived at by the applicant in his personal capacity.

¶28

The applicant original accused and the respondent no. 4's constituted attorney are present in Court. Learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent no. 4 states that in view of the settlement, he has instructions to withdraw Criminal Revision Application (St) No. 125 of 2017 alongwith Criminal Application No. 117 of 2017 . Criminal Revision Application (St) No. 125 of 2017 alongwith Criminal Application no. 117 of 2017 which seeks condonation of delay are allowed to be withdrawn.

¶29

In the circumstances, I pass the following order :

¶30

(i) The Revision application is allowed in terms of the consent terms. The order of the Sessions Court dated 21st October, 2017 and Order of the Metropolitan Magistrate Court dated 19th September, 2014 are quashed and set aside.

¶31

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

¶32

(iii) The applicants are acquitted of the offence.

¶33

(iv) Criminal Revision Application (St) No. 125 of 2017 alongwith

¶34

3/4

¶35

12-appr-116-2017.odt

¶36

Criminal Application no. 117 of 2017 which seeks condonation of delay are allowed to be withdrawn.

¶37

(v) The applicant shall pay costs of Rs.15,000/- to the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority on or before 17th July, 2017. If costs are not paid the impugned orders will revive without further orders of this Court with consequences to follow.

¶38

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

¶39

Stand over to 18th July, 2017 for recording compliance.

¶40

(A. K. MENON, J.)

¶41

4/4

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

Sagar Babu Parmar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Akshay Vasant Agarwal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sharad Pundlik Palav Vs Shamji Narshi Charla Director of M/S. Charla Estate and Financial Management Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Mahendra Sibuda Ghodke Vs Sangita Mahendra Ghodke @ Sangita Babanrao Shinde and Anr.

Ratan Bhagchand Madhwani Vs Asha Ratan Madhwani and Anr.

Raghu K Suvarna and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.