Partly allowed

Ghanshyam Prabhakar Kale v. Prabhakar Laxman Kapse

Bombay HC17 Sept 2021IA/2250/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision petition regarding a cheque dishonour case, the High Court ordered the withdrawal of certain amounts deposited by the applicant, with provisions to repay them to the complainant contingent on the revision outcome.

What did the court decide?

Allowed withdrawal of deposited amounts; remitted funds to courts for conditional payment to complainant upon applicant's undertaking and revision outcome.

Ghanshyam Prabhakar Kale Vs Prabhakar Laxman Kapse — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

1/2

¶2

IA-2250-2021 (SR.20)
17.09.2021

¶3

Rane

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2250 OF 2021

¶5

IN

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 72 OF 2021
Ghanshyam Prabhakar Kale .....Applicant

¶7

V/s.

¶8

Prabhakar Laxman Kapse

¶9

....Respondent

¶10

* * * *

¶11

Ms. Yogita Deshmukh Chitnis, Advocate for the applicant in Revision No.72/2021.

¶12

Mr. Vinod V. Utekar, Advocate for the respondent in IA-
2250-2021 and for applicant in Revision No.72/2021.

¶13

Smt. Sharmila Kaushik, APP for State.

¶14

CORAM : SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.

¶15

Friday, 17th September, 2021.

¶16

P.C. :

¶17

1. Heard.

¶18

2. Two Courts below have concurrently held that,
the cheque issued by the accused in favour of the
complainant in discharge of legally enforceable dues, was
returned upaid. The conviction recorded by the trial Court
has been confirmed in Appeal, against which accused has
preferred this Revision. Pursuant to order/s, applicant-
accused, has deposited Rs.4,60,000/- (Rs.1,60,000/- in the

¶19

Rane2/2 IA-2250-2021 (SR.20)
17.09.2021

¶20

Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Palghar and
Rs.3,00,000/- in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Dahanu).

¶21

3. Herein cheque was issued by the accused in
favour of the complainant in 2009, and two Courts have
rendered concurrent findings.

¶22

4. In consideration of the facts of the case,
application, seeking, withdrawal of amount deposited by
applicant, deserves to be allowed.

¶23

NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT

¶24

5. In the result, the application is allowed.
Applicant is allowed to withdraw Rs.1,60,000/- from the
Registry of Additional Sessions Judge, Palghar and
Rs.3,00,000/- from the Registry of Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Dahanu. If the applicant succeeds in the Revision,
he will bring back the money on furnishing an Undertaking.
The JMFC, Dahanu shall pay Rs.3,00,000/- to the
complainant in SCC No.189/2009 and the Registry of the
Additional Sessions Judge shall pay Rs.1,60,000/- to the
complainant (respondent in Criminal Appeal No.24/2011)
on the complainant furnishing an Undertaking as
aforestated. Interim Application is disposed of in the
aforesaid terms.

¶25

Digitally signed by NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Date: 2021.09.18 15:00:55 +0530

¶26

(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.)

Ghanshyam Prabhakar Kale v. Prabhakar Laxman Kapse

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ghanshyam Prabhakar Kale v. Prabhakar Laxman Kapse

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

Kunaal Kiran Shinde and Ors. Vs Ankita Kunaal Shinde and Anr.

Sanatkumar K Jain Vs the State of Maharashtra

Surekha Sunil Shintre Vs Pradeep Sonaram Panchal and Anr.

Santosh @ Michael Ramesh Dhawale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Yashwant Balasaheb Gavade Vs the State of Maharashtra

Fazal Mohammed Azizul Haque Choudhary Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.