Allowed

Payal Doshi (Mrs. Payal Jinesh Shah) v. the State of Maharashtra Ane Anr.

Bombay HC22 Nov 2019WP/696/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner alleged cheque dishonor filed criminal complaint. Petitioner deposited cheque amount in court. Parties reached amicable settlement. Court quashed proceedings and directed return of funds.

What did the court decide?

Quashed CC No. 4300168/SS/2016 and directed Registry to hand over Rs. 2,31,63,877/- plus interest to Respondent No. 2 upon furnishing proof of identity.

Payal Doshi (Mrs. Payal Jinesh Shah) Vs the State of… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

wp.696.19.904.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 696 OF 2019

¶3

Payal Doshi (Payal Jinesh Shah) Adult, residing at Flat No. 406-407, Bhagnary Society, N.S.M. Marg, Sion Chunabhatti, Sion West, ...Petitioner Mumbai- 400 022 (Ori. Accused No.2)

¶4

Versus

¶5

(1) The State of Maharashtra, through The Senior Inspector of Police, Borivali Police Station, Borivali, Mumbai.

¶6

(2) Sunderlal Jain, Adult, Murud Kishore Society, Near Dattapada Phatak, S. V. Road, ...Respondents Borivali West, Mumbai – 400 092 (Ori.Complainant)

¶7

Mr. Ramesh Ramamurthy a/w Mr. Saikumar Ramamurthy and Ms. Jayasree Pillai for the Petitioner

¶8

Mr. A. R. Patil, A.P.P for the Respondent No.1-State

¶9

Mr. Niranjan Mundargi a/w Mr. Avinash Joshi and Mr. Mangesh Bhole i/b Mulla & Mulla & Craigie Blunt & Caroe for the Respondent No. 2

¶10

CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. FRIDAY, 22nd NOVEMBER 2019

¶11

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶12

1 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

1/3

SQ Pathan

wp.696.19.904.doc

2 Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith, with the consent of the parties and is taken up for final disposal. Respondents waive service through their respective counsel.

¶17

3 Learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent No. 2 state that the parties have amicably resolved their dispute. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has tendered an affidavit of the respondent No. 2. The same is taken on record and marked `X’ for identification. It appears that the petitioner has deposited the cheque amount of Rs. 2,31,63,877/- in this Court vide Demand Draft bearing No. 080486 dated 1^st October 2019 drawn on HDFC Bank, Mumbai.

¶18

4 Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has no objection if the said proceedings i.e. CC No. 4300168/SS/2016 pending on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 43^rd Court, Borivali, Mumbai, are quashed and set-side in view of the amicable settlement between the parties.

¶19

5 Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 states that the parties have settled the dispute and that this Court be pleased to direct the Registry to hand over the amount of Rs. 2,31,63,877/- deposited in this Court, to the

2/3

SQ Pathan

wp.696.19.904.doc

respondent No. 2, in view of the settlement. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has no objection if the said amount which is deposited in the Registry, is handed over to the respondent No. 2.

¶24

6 In view of the aforesaid, the following order is passed :

¶25

ORDER

¶26

(i) Petition is allowed. Accordingly, CC No.

¶27

4300168/SS/2016 pending on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 43^rd Court, Borivali, Mumbai, is quashed and set-aside;

¶28

(ii) The Registry to hand over Rs. 2,31,63,877/- deposited by the petitioner in this Court along with accrued interest, if any, to the respondent No. 2, on the respondent No. 2 furnishing proof of his identity;

¶29

(iii) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. Petition is

¶30

disposed of accordingly.

¶31

7 All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

¶32

REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

¶33

3/3

¶34

SQ Pathan

Payal Doshi (Mrs. Payal Jinesh Shah) v. the State of Maharashtra Ane Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Payal Doshi (Mrs. Payal Jinesh Shah) v. the State of Maharashtra Ane Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Praful Anant Gavkar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Satish Baban Kanchan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bhausaheb Vithoba Varpe Vs the State of Maharashtra

Deepinder Singh Bedi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Nusli Neville Wadia Vs Phiroze J. Dastur and Ors.

Tulshidas Mahadev Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.