Bombay High Court
Abdul Qayyum M.H.Khan ... vs 1) M/S. Sjlt Spinning Mill Pvt. Ltd ... on 12 September, 2023
Bench: S. V. Kotwal
2023:BHC-AS:26786
1/5 [email protected]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.83 OF 2023
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1292 OF 2023
IN
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.83 OF 2023
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1293 OF 2023
IN
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.83 OF 2023
Abdul Qayyum A. H. Khan .... Applicant
versus
M/s SJLT Spinning Mill Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. .... Respondents
.......
• Mr. Satyam R. Gaud a/w Ms. Shikhani Shah, Advocate for
Applicant.
• Mr. S. R. Gupta, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
• Mr. S. H. Yadav, APP for the State/Respondent No.2.
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 12th SEPTEMBER, 2023
P.C. :
1. The Applicant was the original accused No.2 and was
described as the proprietor of the Accused No.1 M/s. Metro
Nesarikar
::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2023 05:37:24 :::
2/5 [email protected]
Textiles, before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 70th Court,
Mazgaon, in CC No.7001140/SS/2016. The learned Judge vide
his Judgment and Order dated 31/10/2018 convicted the
Applicant for commission of offence punishable u/s 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to suffer simple
imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.6,90,000/-
and in default to suffer further simple imprisonment for six
months. Out of the fine amount, if recovered, Rs.6,70,000/- was
directed to be paid to the complainant i.e. the Respondent No.1
in the present Criminal Revision Application as compensation.
Remaining fine amount of Rs.20,000/- was directed to be
credited to the State. The case involved dishonour of four
cheques. Three cheques were for Rs.1,47,000/- each and one
cheque was for Rs.1,45,000/-. The said Judgment and Order
was challenged before the Court of Sessions, Greater Mumbai,
vide Criminal Appeal No.789 of 2018. The learned Sessions
Judge vide his Judgment and Order dated 20/03/2023
dismissed the Appeal. The Applicant has thereafter preferred the
present Criminal Revision Application.
::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2023 05:37:24 :::
3/5 [email protected]
2. Today, the Applicant and the authorized representative
of the Respondent No.1 are present before the Court. They are
identified by their respective counsel. The parties have filed joint
consent affidavit along with the consent terms. Both the learned
counsel submit that the matter is settled between the parties. In
paragraph No.12 of the affidavit, the complainant i.e. the
Respondent No.1 has specifically stated that the complainant has
no objection to compound the present matter and the
complainant does not wish to proceed with the present matter
since the matter is amicably settled.
3. Both the learned counsel submitted that the affidavit is
supported by the consent terms. In paragraph No.7 of the
affidavit the Applicant has stated that the amount of
Rs.3,71,000/- which was already deposited by the Applicant
before this Court, can be withdrawn by the Respondent No.1
and that the Applicant does not have any objection for such
withdrawal.
::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2023 05:37:24 :::
4/5 [email protected]
4. Considering the joint consent affidavit, the consent
terms and the submissions made by both the learned counsel in
the presence of the contesting parties, permission can be granted
to compound the said offence.
5. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the
Applicant has suffered irreparable financial loss during spread of
Covid-19 and therefore leniency may be shown in awarding the
cost. Since the matter is already settled and taking into account
submissions made by learned counsel for the Applicant, I am
inclined to show leniency in directing the payment of cost.
6. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
(i) Permission is granted to compound the offence
which is the subject matter of the case. The
Judgment and Order dated 31/10/2018 passed
by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 70th Court,
5/5 [email protected]
Mazgaon, Mumbai, in C.C. No.7001140/SS/2016
as well as the Judgment and Order dated
20/03/2023 passed by the Sessions Judge,
Greater Mumbai, in Criminal Appeal No.789 of
2018, are set aside.
(ii) The Applicant is acquitted.
(iii) The Respondent No.1 is permitted to withdraw
the amount which the Applicant has deposited
before this Court.
(iv) The Applicant shall pay Rs.25,000/- to the Legal
Services Authority of this Court within a period
of 8 weeks from today.
(v) The non-bailable warrant which is still pending
against the Applicant in connection with the
present case, issued by the Appellate Court, is set
aside.
(vi) Criminal Revision Application and all the
companion applications pending in this Revision
Application, are disposed of.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
