Mangesh Kondiba Jadhav vs Avanti Sunil Dixit And Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 11321 Bom

2023:BHC-AS:33523



                                                  1 of 8                          1-spkng-REVN-160-2017


                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                           CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.160 OF 2017
                                              WITH
                               CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.165 OF 2017
                                                IN
                           CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.160 OF 2017
                    Mangesh Kondiba Jadhav                                          ...Applicant
                             Versus
                    Avanti Sunil Dixit & Anr                                    ...Respondents

                                                   ------------
                    None present for Applicant.
                    Ms. Nishi Singhvi, i/b Vikram R. Sutaria, Advocate for Respondent
                    No.1.
                    Mr. Arfan Sait, APP for State/Respondent No.2.
                                                  ------------

                                               CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.

DATE : 3rd NOVEMBER 2023 PC :

1. The matter is placed by the office for speaking to the

minutes to correct the typographical error in the title of the order

dated 31st October 2023. In that title Criminal Bail Application

No.165/2017 is mentioned. Instead of that, it should be Criminal

Application No.165/2017. This typographical error be corrected

and in the title of the order Criminal Application No.165/2017 be

mentioned.

             Ashwini V





                                   2 of 8                         1-spkng-REVN-160-2017

2. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1

points out that, in paragraph No.1, the date of the trial Court's

order is mentioned as 26/03/2023 at two places. The correct date

is 26/03/2013. The date mentioned in paragraph No.1 at two

places be corrected and the correct date 26/03/2013 be

mentioned.

3. The order be corrected accordingly and the corrected

order be uploaded. The rest of the order shall remain as it is.

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

CORRECTED ORDER DATED 31.10.2023 READS THUS :

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.160 OF 2017 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.165 OF 2017 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.160 OF 2017

Mangesh Kondiba Jadhav .... Applicant

versus

Avanti Sunil Dixit & Anr. .... Respondents .......

Nesarikar

3 of 8 1-spkng-REVN-160-2017

• Mr. Sneha Jethwa, Advocate for Applicant. • Mr. Agastya Desai i/b. Vikram R. Sutaria, Advocate for Respondent No.1.

• Mr. Ajay Patil, APP for the State/Respondent.

                                  CORAM           : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
                                  DATE            : 31st OCTOBER, 2023

 P.C. :


 1.       The      Applicant     was       the    original     accused         in     SCC

No.3746/2009 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Thane.

At the conclusion of the trial, the Applicant was convicted for

commission of offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act. He was sentenced to suffer simple

imprisonment for three months. He was directed to pay an

amount of Rs.5 lakhs to the complainant within a period of two

months from the date of order i.e. from 26/03/2013. The Trial

Court's judgment and order dated 26/03/2013 was challenged

by the Applicant before the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, in

Criminal Appeal No.164 of 2013. The said Appeal was dismissed

vide judgment and order dated 07/01/2017. The record of this

application shows that page Nos.140 to 153 are missing.

4 of 8 1-spkng-REVN-160-2017

Learned counsel for the Applicant has tendered a copy of the

judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane. Learned

counsel for Respondent No.1 accepts that it is a correct copy and

therefore it is taken on record to complete the record of this

application.

2. The prosecution was for dishonour of the cheque for the

amount of Rs.4 lakhs. The prosecution case is that the

complainant/Respondent No.1 herein was carrying the business

of interior decoration. The complainant had carried out the

interior work, but the Applicant had not paid the entire amount.

In part payment of his dues, he issued a cheque of Rs.4 lakhs

drawn on Bharat Sahakari Bank Ltd., Shivaji Nagar Branch,

Thane dated 18/02/2009. It was dishonoured and it was the

subject matter of the prosecution.

3. At this stage, both the parties have entered into consent

terms. They are taken on record and marked 'X' for

identification. The complainant i.e. the Respondent No.1 as well

5 of 8 1-spkng-REVN-160-2017

as the Applicant are present in the Court. They are represented

by their respective counsel and are identified by their counsel.

The consent terms mentions that during pendency of the present

application, both the parties have arrived at the mutual

satisfactory solution. The Applicant has already deposited Rs.5

lakhs before the Trial Court. Above that, he has paid Rs.5 lakhs

more and therefore the parties have arrived at a settlement.

Paragraph No.10 of the consent terms mentions that the

Respondent No.1 irrevocably agrees and concurs to withdraw

the present proceedings. Paragraph No.12 mentions that the

Respondent No.1 shall withdraw all the allegations against the

Applicant. Paragraph No.14 mentions that the Respondent No.1

has taken a decision to withdraw the proceeding at her free will

and accord.

4. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that in view of the

consent terms, the parties be allowed to compound the offence.

They also jointly submit that the Trial Court be directed to

permit the Respondent No.1 to withdraw the amount of Rs.5

6 of 8 1-spkng-REVN-160-2017

lakhs which the Applicant has deposited before the Trial Court,

pursuant to the order passed by this Court in the present

proceeding vide order dated 04/04/2017 passed in Criminal

Application No.165 of 2017 in Criminal Revision Application

No.160 of 2017.

5. Considering that the parties did not wish to escalate the

matter further and are desirous to compound the offence, there

is no reason as to why permission cannot be granted to them.

Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that some leniency

be shown to the Applicant in directing to deposit the cost to the

Legal Services Authority of this Court. She submitted that the

Applicant is unmarried, but he is looking after his old parents

and an unmarried sister. The Applicant had to make

arrangement to make payment to the Respondent No.1 and he is

not in a financially sound condition.

6. Considering these submissions, some leniency can be shown

to the Applicant in depositing the cost to the Legal Services

7 of 8 1-spkng-REVN-160-2017

Authority of this Court. Based on this discussion, following order

is passed :

7. Hence, the following order :

ORDER

(i) The offence is permitted to be compounded.

(ii) The Applicant is acquitted in connection with SCC No.3746/2009 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Thane.

(iii) The Respondent No.1 is permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs.5 lakhs with its accrued interest, which the Applicant had deposited before the Trial Court, pursuant to the order dated 04/04/2017 passed in Criminal Application No.165 of 2017 in Criminal Revision Application No.160 of 2017.

(iv) The Applicant shall deposit an amount of Rs.30,000/- within a period of six weeks before the Legal Services Authority of this Court.

                                             8 of 8                   1-spkng-REVN-160-2017




                   (v)         The order of compounding of the offence and

acquittal will be subject to deposit of this amount of Rs.30,000/- before the Legal Services Authority.

(vi) With these directions, the Revision Application and the Bail Application stand disposed of.

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)