Rambhau Daulatrao Khedkar v. Girdhar Fakirchand Agrawal

Bombay HC10 Sept 2025APL/1065/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Suspension of sentence under Section 389 CrPC; relaxation of 20% deposit condition imposed with suspension; conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881; Exhibit 12 applications; Criminal Appeal Nos. 99/2024, 97/2024, 98/2024; warrant issued for non-compliance and its non-execution; 15-day timeline direction to appellate Court; bar on seeking adjournment; Nagpur Bench; Akola parties; disposal of APL Nos. 1064, 1053, 1065 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

Criminal applications disposed of with directions: appellate Court to decide the Exhibit 12 relaxation applications within 15 days of receipt of the order; parties not to seek adjournment; warrant for non-compliance not to be executed till decision on Exhibit 12 and seven days thereafter. ¶¶37

Rambhau Daulatrao Khedkar vs Girdhar Fakirchand Agrawal — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellate Court should be directed to decide the pending applications for relaxation of the 20% deposit condition (Exhibit 12 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 99/2024, 97/2024 and 98/2024) within a fixed time frame. +1 more

¶¶32

Court's answer

The appellate Court is directed to decide the applications preferred under Exhibit 12 within 15 days from receipt of this order.

¶¶36

Ratio / Principle

The parties agreed that they will not seek any adjournment before the appellate Court.

¶¶36

Key takeaways

The warrant issued for non-compliance of the order suspending sentence (stayed by this Court) shall not be executed till decision is taken on Exhibit 12 and seven days thereafter.ratio¶¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench (Rajnish R. Vyas, J.) disposed of three companion Criminal Applications (APL) Nos. 1064, 1053 and 1065 of 2025 filed by the original accused, convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, whose appeals were pending before the appellate Court. Sentence stood suspended under Section 389 CrPC subject to deposit of a sum equivalent to 20% of the compensation/fine amount; the accused's applications for relaxation of that condition (Exhibit 12 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 99/2024, 97/2024 and 98/2024) were pending undecided, and a warrant issued for non-compliance lay unexecuted owing to interim relief of this Court. The Court directed the appellate Court to decide the Exhibit 12 applications within 15 days of receipt of the order, recorded the parties' agreement not to seek adjournment, and directed that the warrant not be executed till decision on Exhibit 12 and seven days thereafter.

¶1

2025:BHC-NAG:9535

¶2

17.apl1064.2025jud.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1064 OF 2025

¶5

Rambhau Daulatrao Khedkar Aged about 87 years, Occ. Proprietor of Kulswamini Trading Company, R/o. Near Renuka Mata Mandir, Dabki Road, Akola, Tq. & District – Akola

¶6

... Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Girdhar Fakirchand Agrawal Age : 50 years, Occ. : Business, Proprietor of Nikhilkumar and Co. R/o. Old Cloth Market, Akola, ... Non-applicant Tq. & District – Akola

¶9

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1053 OF 2025

¶10

Rambhau Daulatrao Khedkar Aged about 87 years, Occ. Proprietor of Kulswamini Trading ... Applicant Company, R/o. Near Renuka Mata Mandir, Dabki Road, Akola, Tq. & District – Akola

¶11

Versus Girdhar Fakirchand Agrawal Age : 50 years, Occ. : Business, Proprietor of Nikhilkumar and Co. R/o. Old Cloth Market, Akola, ... Non-applicant Tq. & District – Akola

¶12

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1065 OF 2025

¶13

Rambhau Daulatrao Khedkar Aged about 87 years, Occ. Proprietor of Kulswamini Trading ... Applicant Company, R/o. Near Renuka Mata Mandir, Dabki Road, Akola

¶14

PAGE 1 OF 4

¶15

17.apl1064.2025jud.odt

¶16

Versus

¶17

Girdhar Fakirchand Agrawal Age : 50 years, Occ. : Business, Proprietor of Nikhilkumar and Co. R/o. Old Cloth Market, Akola, Tq. & District – Akola

¶18

... Non-applicant

¶19

Mr. Mohan Agrawal, Advocate h/f Mr. S.V. Sirpurkar, Advocate for applicant. Mr. S.A. Mohta, Advocate for non-applicant.

¶20

CORAM : RAJNISH R. VYAS, J. DATE : 20.09.2025

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT:

¶22

Admit.

¶23

(2) Heard finally with the consent of both the learned counsel for the parties.

¶24

(3) Criminal Application (APL) Nos.1053 & 1065 of 2025

¶25

are not board but at the request and consent of both learned counsel for the parties, they are taken on board and heard finally.

¶26

(4) The present applications have been preferred by the original accused. In all these cases, the applicant is convicted for the commission of offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. The challenged is made to conviction by preferring an appeal before the appellate Court. The applicant has preferred an application under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of

¶27

PAGE 2 OF 4

¶28

17.apl1064.2025jud.odt

¶29

sentence. Accordingly, the learned appellate Court suspended the sentence imposed by the trial Court by directing the applicant to deposit sum equivalent to 20% of compensation/fine amount. Since the said condition was found to be rigorous, the applicant preferred application for relaxation of condition on various grounds. The said application was opposed by the original complainant. I have been informed by both the learned counsels that these applications are pending before the appellate Court and till this date, no order has been passed.

¶30

(5) Learned counsel for the original complainant has also stated that since there was no compliance of order directing deposit of 20% of amount, he was required to prefer an application for issuance of warrant and accordingly, warrant has been issued but it is not executed till today due to interim relief granted by this Court.

¶31

(6)

¶32

(6) Be that as it may, after passing of the order, suspending sentence an application for relaxation of condition at Exhibit 12 in Criminal Appeal No.99/2024, at Exhibit 12 in Criminal Appeal No.97/2024 and at Exhibit 12 in Criminal Appeal No.98/2024, is moved, the said applications are not decided till date.

¶33

(7) In the aforesaid background and in order to put the

¶34

PAGE 3 OF 4

¶35

17.apl1064.2025jud.odt

¶36

controversy at rest, it is directed that appellate Court to decide the aforesaid applications preferred under Exhibit 12 within 15 days from the receipt of this order. The parties agree that they will not seek any adjournment before the appellate Court. Since the warrant has been issued for non-compliance of the order suspending the sentence, which is stayed by this Court, it is directed that the same shall not be executed till decision is taken on Exhibit 12 and seven days thereafter.

¶37

(8) The criminal applications are disposed of accordingly.

¶38

[RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.]

¶39

Prity

¶40

Signed by: Mrs. Prity Gabhane Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 22/09/2025 18:58:28

¶41

PAGE 4 OF 4

Rambhau Daulatrao Khedkar v. Girdhar Fakirchand Agrawal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rambhau Daulatrao Khedkar v. Girdhar Fakirchand Agrawal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jasmin Moinuddin Choudhari vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso. Ps. Hinganghat, Dist. Wardha and Other

Jugal Chainsukh Loya vs the State of Maharashtra at the Instance of Shri M.C. Pawar Food Safety Officer and Another Nagpur

Bharat Budha Koli vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Subhash S/O Jalbaji Pandit and Others vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Rambhau Daulatrao Khedkar vs Girdhar Fakirchand Agrawal

Pandurang Waman Rahij vs the Ex. Engineer, Osmanabad Medium Project, M.P. Division, Osmanabad and Anr.