Bombay High Court
Rajesh Raghunath Shukla vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 January, 2024
Author: Prakash D. Naik
Bench: Prakash D. Naik
2024:BHC-AS:2836
5-REVN-193-2020.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 193 OF 2020
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1197 OF 2020
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 21411 OF 2023
IN
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 193 OF 2020
Rajesh Raghunath Shukla ... Applicant
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3449 OF 2022
IN
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 193 OF 2020
Amarsinh Jyotirao Jadhav ... Applicant
Versus
Rajesh Raghunath Shukla & Anr. ...Respondents
....
Mr. Kunal D. Ambulkar, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. Suyash Sule for Respondent No.2 in Revision Application.
Mr. Arfan Sait, APP for the Respondent - State.
Mr. Amarsinh J. Jadhav, Applicant in Interim Application No.3449 of
2022 is present through V.C.
....
CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
DATE : 19th JANUARY, 2024.
P.C.:
1. The revision applicant is convicted for offence under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act vide Judgment and order
Sajakali Jamadar 1 of 4
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2024 04:02:52 :::
5-REVN-193-2020.doc
dated 1st March 2017 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., 22nd Court,
Pune in Summary Criminal Case No.11226 of 2024.
2. The revision applicant was sentenced till rising of the Court
and to pay fine of Rs.11 Lakhs. The Appeal challenging the
judgment of conviction viz. Criminal Appeal No.145 of 2017 was
dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune vide
Judgment and order dated 3rd March, 2020.
3. It is submitted that the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was
deposited in the Sessions Court during pendency of the appeal was
withdrawn by the complainant. Amount of Rs.3,00,000/-
deposited in this Court during pendency of the revision application
is also withdrawn by the complainant. The parties have settled the
disputes. The complainant has filed application for compounding
the offence under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.
The complainant is present in the Court through Video
Conferencing. He has no objection for allowing revision
application by compounding the offence under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instrument Act.
4. Another complaint was filed by the Respondent/Complainant
against wife of applicant Smt. Dhanashree Shukla. She was
convicted vide Judgment and order dated 01.03.2017. Conviction
Sajakali Jamadar 2 of 4
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2024 04:02:52 :::
5-REVN-193-2020.doc
is confirmed by appellate Court.
5. MOU has been executed between complainant and applicant
and his wife Smt. Dhanashree Shukla and an amount of Rs. 4 Lakhs
was given to complainant. The complainant has filed Affidavit
giving no objection for allowing revision application.
6. It is submitted that apart from the amount withdrawal by
complainant, the amount of Rs.4 Lakhs in respect to both
complaints has been given to complainant as per the MOU.
7. Considering the fact that the parties have settled the dispute
and the amount is paid to the complainant. The application for
compounding the offence in accordance with Section 147 of the
Negotiable Instrument Act can be allowed.
ORDER
i. Criminal Revision Application No.193 of 2020 is
allowed;
ii. Interim Application (St) No. 21411 Of 2023 is allowed;
iii. Impugned Judgment and order dated 1st March 2017
passed by the learned J.M.F.C., 22 nd Court, Pune in Summary
Criminal Case No.11226 of 2024 and confirmed by the
Appellate Court vide Judgment and order dated 3 rd March,
2020 passed in Appeal No.145 of 2017 is quashed and set
aside and the applicant is acquitted for offence under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.
Sajakali Jamadar 3 of 4
5-REVN-193-2020.doc
iv. Criminal Revision Application and all Interim
Applications are disposed of.
(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)
Sajakali Jamadar 4 of 4
