Bombay High Court
M/S. Ambika Electrovision vs M/S. Rahul Furniture And Anr on 31 July, 2023
Bench: S. V. Kotwal
2023:BHC-AS:21668
1 of 5 49-REVN-98-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.98 OF 2022
M/s Ambika Electrovision ..Applicant
Versus
M/s Rahul Furniture & Anr ..Respondents
------------
Mr. Ajinkya Badar, for Applicant.
Ms. Renuka Birajdar, i/b Chetan D. Oswal, for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Arfan Sait, APP, for State/Respondent.
Mr. Anand Kumar Ghisulal Jain, present-in-person.
------------
Digitally
signed by
ASHWINI
ASHWINI
JANARDAN
JANARDAN VALLAKATI
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
VALLAKATI Date:
2023.08.02
17:08:54
+0530
DATE : 31st JULY 2023
PC :
1. The Revision Applicant was the original Accused in
S.T.C. No.206 of 2013 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Vadgaon Maval, district Pune. The learned trial Judge convicted
the Applicant for commission of offence punishable under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (for short "N.I. Act").
He was directed to pay cheque amount and compensation of Rs.18
lakhs to the Complainant as per Section 357 (3) of Criminal
Procedure Code and in default he was directed to suffer simple
imprisonment for one month. The Applicant challenged the said
Ashwini V
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2023 23:09:23 :::
2 of 5 49-REVN-98-2022
order before the Court of Sessions at Pune, vide Criminal Appeal
No.367 of 2018. That Appeal was dismissed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Pune vide his order dated 8th February 2022.
2. Heard learned Counsel for the Applicant as well as
Respondent No.1 (the original Complainant). Both the learned
Counsel submitted that the matter is finally settled between the
parties and both of them consented for compounding of the
offence. The Petitioner as well as the Respondent No.1 have filed
their separate affidavits, they are taken on record.
3. The Applicant- Kunal Mali and the Respondent No.1-
Anand Kumar Jain are present in the Court. They are identified by
their respective Counsel.
4. The Petitioner has stated in his affidavit that they have
settled the matter between themselves. He has complied with the
consent terms dated 14th February 2022, which are annexed with
MOU to this Application.
5. The Respondent No.1 in his affidavit has stated that the
Applicant had executed consent terms with the Respondent No.1
Ashwini V
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2023 23:09:23 :::
3 of 5 49-REVN-98-2022
and that the Applicant has complied with the stipulated consent
terms. He has referred to certain amount which he has received
till 13th July 2023. In paragraph 5 he has stated that the Applicant
has complied with all the stipulated consent terms and as agreed,
the Respondent No.1 was giving his full consent to allow this
Revision Application and both the judgments at the trial Court as
well as Appellate Court be quashed and set aside. Thus, there is
settlement between the parties and a joint prayer is made for
compounding the offence. Learned Counsel for the Applicant
referred to the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Criminal Appeal No.963 of 2010 in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu
v. Sayed Babalal H. decided on 3rd May 2010. In those guidelines,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that if the Application
for compounding is made before the Sessions Court or a High
Court in revision or Appeal, such compounding may be allowed on
the condition that the Accused pays 15% of the cheque amount by
way of costs.
6. Learned Counsel for the Applicant invited my attention
to further observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same
Ashwini V
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2023 23:09:23 :::
4 of 5 49-REVN-98-2022
judgment, wherein, it was mentioned that though the imposition
of cost by the competent Court is a matter of discretion, the scale
of cost has been suggested in the interest of uniformity. It was
importantly observed that the competent Court can reduce the cost
with regard to the specific facts and circumstances of the case
while recording reasons in writing for such variance. In the
present case, learned Court for the Applicant submitted that to
settle the issue, the Petitioner has sold his house and shop. He has
suffered major financial loss in his business during Covid-19
period. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 agrees with
these submissions.
7. Considering these facts and the current financial position
of the Petitioner, the condition to deposit cost need not be imposed
in the facts and circumstances of this case.
8. Hence, the following order:
ORDER
i) The offence is allowed to be compounded.
Ashwini V
5 of 5 49-REVN-98-2022
ii) The judgment and order dated 23rd April 2018
passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Vadgaon Maval, district Pune in S.T.C. No.206 of
2013 as well as the judgment and order dated
8th February 2022 passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Pune in Criminal Appeal No.367
of 2018, are set aside.
iii) Consequently the Applicant is acquitted from the
charges of commission of offence punishable
under Section 138 of the N.I. Act which is the
subject matter of these proceedings.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
Ashwini V
