Bombay High Court
Rakeshkumar A. Jain vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 16 August, 2017
Bench: Anuja Prabhudessai
907_revn_55_2017.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.55 OF 2017
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.49 OF 2017
IN
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.55 OF 2017
Ranjit Sham Chougule & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (L) NO.122 OF 2017
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.114 OF 2017
IN
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (L) NO.122 OF 2017
Rakesh Kumar A. Jain ...Applicants
Versus
Ranjit Sham Chougule & Others ...Respondents
.....
Mr. Satyavrat Joshi i/b. M/s. Vidhi Partners for the Applicants in
APPR/49/2017 and REVN/55/2017.
Mr. Santosh D. Thakur for the Respondent No.4 and the Applicant in
REVN(ST)/122/2017 and APPR/114/2017.
Mr. P.H. Gaikwad, APP for the Respondent -State.
CORAM : SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.
DATED : 16th AUGUST, 2017.
P.C.:-
The Applicants in Cri. Revision Application No.55 of 2017
were the accused whereas the Applicant in Cri. Revision Application
(L) No.122 of 2017 was the complainant in C.C. No.42215/SS/2009
Megha 1/6
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2018 16:05:14 :::
907_revn_55_2017.doc
on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate, 7th Court, Dadar, Mumbai, and
they shall be hereinafter referred to as the accused and complainant
respectively.
2. The accused have filed Cri. Revision Application No.55 of
2017 challenging their conviction and sentence for the offence
punishable under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act. Whereas the complainant has filed Revision
Application (L) No.122 of 2017 challenging clause 4 of the order dated
21.10.2016 in Criminal Appeal No.1043 of 2014 whereby accused
Nos.2 and 3 have been exempted from paying any compensation to the
complainant.
3. The learned counsels for the accused and the complainant
in their respective revision applications have submitted that during the
pendency of these revisions, the complainant and accused have settled
the dispute amicably. They have placed on record the consent terms
which read as under :
CONSENT TERMS
"The parties to this revision application have agreed and resolved
to settle their disputes on the following terms and conditions:
1. The Petitioner No.1 Ranjit Sham Chougule undertakes to
Megha 2/6
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2018 16:05:14 :::
907_revn_55_2017.doc
this Hon'ble Court to pay a total sum of Rs.22,25,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Twenty Five Thousand only)
to the Respondent Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain in the
following manner :-
(i) At the time of signing and filing of this consent term in
this Hon'ble Court a sum of Rs.22,25,000/- (Rupees
Twenty Two Lacs Twenty Five Thousand only) by
bank through PO Ref No.462909 dated 07/08/2017
issued by Deutsche Bank at its Fort Branch, drawn in
favour of Rakesh Kumar Jain.
(ii) A sum of Rs.4,45,000/- (Rupees Four Lacs Forty Five
Thousand only) being 20% of Trial Court amount of
Rs.22,25,000/- deposited by the Petitioner Ranjit
Chougule in the Trial Court 7th Bhoiwada, Dadar,
during the admission of appeal in Sessions Court,
shall be refunded to Petitioner/Original accused No.1
Mr. Ranjit Sham Chougule. The Petitioner Ranjit
Chougule undertakes to this Hon'ble Court that he
has not encumbered the said amount of deposit of
sum of Rs.4,45,000/-(Rupees Four Lacs Forty Five
Thousand only) in any manner or withdrawn by him
Megha 3/6
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2018 16:05:14 :::
907_revn_55_2017.doc
or anyone claiming under or through him from the
Trial Court and remains to be with the Trial Court.
2. The Trial Court 7th Bhoiwada, Dadar, be directed to refund the
Bail amount to the petitioners/original accused, paid by them
at the time of first appearances in C.C. No.42215/SS/2009.
3. The Judgment of Conviction passed by Trial Court in C.C.
No.42215/SS/2009 dated 20.09.2014 and Judgment of
Sessions Court dated 21/10/2016 in Criminal Appeal No.1043
of 2014 be set aside and the Petitioners/Original Accused be
acquitted/discharge.
4. The parties hereto agree that on fulfillment of the above
mentioned terms and conditions, the above mentioned revision
application stands disposed off.
5. Parties agreed to bear their own cost."
4. The consent terms have been signed by accused Nos.2, 4
and 5 as well as the complainant and their respective Advocates. The
respective parties and their counsels have confirmed that the terms are
agreeable to them. The terms are taken on record and marked 'X' for
identification The undertaking given by the respective parties are
accepted.
Megha 4/6
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2018 16:05:14 :::
907_revn_55_2017.doc
5. Since the parties have arrived at amicable settlement in
terms of the consent terms, leave is granted to compound the offence.
Hence, the following order:-
ORDER
(i) The Revision Applications are allowed in terms of the consent
terms. The order of the Special Judge(CBI)/The Addl.
Sessions Judge, Gr. Bombay, dated 21.10.2016 and order of
the Metropolitan Magistrate, 7th Court, Dadar, Mumbai, dated
20.9.2014 are quashed and set aside;
(ii) The accused are acquitted of the offence punishable under
Section 138 r/w 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act;
(iii) The accused No.2 shall pay costs of Rs.25,000/- to Police
Welfare Fund within a period of two weeks. If costs are not
paid the impugned order shall stand recalled without further
orders of this Court with consequences to follow;
(iv) In terms of clause (ii) of paragraph (1) and clause (2) of the
consent terms an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- deposited before
the Trial Court towards cash surety be refunded to the accused
Megha 5/6
907_revn_55_2017.doc
No.2;
(v) All other applications stand disposed of;
(vi) Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order;
6. Stand over to 31.8.2017 for compliance.
(ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)
Megha 6/6
