Allowed

Sheela Sheshrao Lokade @ Sheela Ganesh Suryawanshi v. Rachna Ashokrao Hippalgaonkar and Anr.

Bombay HC14 Dec 2021REVN/27/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court reduced the cost of criminal revision under Damodar S. Prabhu guidelines from 15% to Rs. 30,000 considering financial hardship. The revision was allowed to set aside the appellate court's judgment acquitting the appellant based on an out-of-court settlement under Section 148 NI Act, leading to the appellant's acquittal.

What did the court decide?

Appellant acquitted. Impugned judgment set aside. Cost fixed at Rs. 30,000. Balance deposit permitted for withdrawal.

Sheela Sheshrao Lokade @ Sheela Ganesh Suryawanshi Vs Rachna… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

901 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.27 OF 2019 WITH APPLN/700/2020 IN REVN/27/2019

¶3

SHEELA SHESHRAO LOKADE @ SHEELA GANESH SURYAWANSHI VERSUS

¶4

RACHNA ASHOKRAO HIPPALGAONKAR AND ANR

¶5

Shri. Abid R. Shaikh, Advocate h/f Shri. K. N. Shaikh, Advocate for the applicant Shri. G. O. Wattamwar, APP for the respondent/State Shri. A. V. Indrale Patil, Advocate for respondent No. 1.

¶6

CORAM : M. G. SEWLIKAR, J. DATED : 14^th DECEMBER, 2021

¶7

PER COURT :-

¶8

Learned counsel Shri. Abid Shaikh for the applicant submits that the applicant has deposited Rs.5,50,000/- on 10^th December, 2021. Learned counsel Shri. Indrale Patil also confirms this position. He states that respondent has received the amount. Shri. Indrale Patil submits that in terms of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu Versus Sayed Babalal H. reported in 2010 DGLS(SC)317 . Applicant has to deposit 15% of the cheque amount as cost as applicant compounded the offence in revision in High Court.

¶9

1 of 4

¶10

rev27.19.odt

¶11

The total amount of cheque is Rs.7,00,000/-. 15% of the amount of cheque comes to Rs.1,05,000/-. Learned counsel Shri. Indrale Patil invites attention of this court to the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu Versus Sayed Babalal H. (cited supra) that in appropriate cases Court can reduce the amount of cost by giving reasons. Learned counsel Shri. Shaikh submits that applicant was working in a college as a Clerk. She lost her job. Her husband is a retired teacher. He further submits that already she has paid Rs.5,50,000/- on 10^th December, 2021 itself and she had to raise this amount by taking loan from her friends and relatives. He submits that considering the financial constraints of the applicant, amount of cost be reduced.

¶12

Learned counsel Indrale Patil opposes these submissions. He submits that applicant has utilized the amount of cheque of Rs.7,00,000/- for almost 8 years. She could have compounded the matter either in the Trial Court or in the Appellate Court. She dragged respondent to this Court. Therefore, amount of cost should not be reduced.

¶13

2 of 4

¶14

rev27.19.odt

¶15

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant Shri. Abid Shaikh amount of cost is reduced to Rs.30,000/-. Applicant to pay the cost within four weeks.

¶16

Parties have amicably settled the dispute. The judgment of the Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2017, dated 19^th January, 2019 confirming the judgment of the Trial Court in Summary Criminal Case No. 548 of 2015, dated 25^th September, 2017 stand set aside in terms of Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on account of out of Court settlement between the parties. In terms of settlement placed on record which is marked as ‘X’. Accused stands acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶17

Cost to be paid within four weeks from today. On depositing the cost it shall be credited to the High Court, Legal Aid Sub Committee, Aurangabad.

¶18

3 of 4

¶19

rev27.19.odt

¶20

Respondent is permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs.2,15,000/- deposited in this Court and Rs. 35,000/deposited in the Appellate Court.

¶21

Revision is disposed of. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

¶22

[M. G. SEWLIKAR, J.]

¶23

ssp

¶24

4 of 4

¶25

rev27.19.odt

Sheela Sheshrao Lokade @ Sheela Ganesh Suryawanshi v. Rachna Ashokrao Hippalgaonkar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheela Sheshrao Lokade @ Sheela Ganesh Suryawanshi v. Rachna Ashokrao Hippalgaonkar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijaya Satyajeet Hiras and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sunny @ Sani Shamrao Athwale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jaya W/O. Balaji Bangar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shaikh Taher S/O Shaikh Pasha Vs Kalima Begam W/O Shaikh Taher and Anr.

Vikas Gokuldas Bairagi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Shaikh Taher S/O. Shaikh Pasha Vs Kalima Begam W/O. Shaikh Taher and Others