Bombay High Court
Mangesh Kondiba Jadhav vs Avanti Sunil Dixit And Anr on 31 October, 2023
Bench: S. V. Kotwal
2023:BHC-AS:33124
1/6 [email protected]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.160 OF 2017
WITH
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.165 OF 2017
IN
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.160 OF 2017
Mangesh Kondiba Jadhav .... Applicant
versus
Avanti Sunil Dixit & Anr. .... Respondents
.......
• 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
Nesarikar
::: Uploaded on - 02/11/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2023 23:05:22 :::
2/6 [email protected]
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 26/03/2023. The Trial
Court's judgment and order dated 26/03/2023 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.
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.
::: Uploaded on - 02/11/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2023 23:05:22 :::
3/6 [email protected]
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
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
::: Uploaded on - 02/11/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2023 23:05:22 :::
4/6 [email protected]
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
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
::: Uploaded on - 02/11/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2023 23:05:22 :::
5/6 [email protected]
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 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.
6/6 [email protected]
(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.
(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.)
