Bombay High Court
Amarsinh Jyotirao Jadhav vs Dhanshree Rajesh Shukla And Anr on 19 January, 2024
Author: Prakash D. Naik
Bench: Prakash D. Naik
2024:BHC-AS:2834
5-REVN-194-2020.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 194 OF 2020
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1198 OF 2020
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) 21298 OF 2023
IN
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 194 OF 2020
Dhanshree Rajesh Shukla ... Applicant
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra ...Respondent
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3591 OF 2022
IN
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 194 OF 2020
Amarsinh Jyotirao Jadhav ... Applicant
Versus
Dhanashree Rajesh 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.3591 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
dated 1st March 2017 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., 22nd Court,
Pune in Summary Criminal Case No.11227 of 2024.
Sajakali Jamadar 1 of 3
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2024 04:02:42 :::
5-REVN-194-2020.doc
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.146 of 2017 was
dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune vide
Judgment and order dated 3rd March, 2020.
3. It is submitted that the parties have resolved the dispute.
The offence can be compounded. The revision applicant had
deposited the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- in the Sessions Court during
pendency of the appeal which was withdrawn by the complainant.
Amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was deposited in this Court during
pendency of the revision application which is also withdrawn by
the complainant. 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
Negotiable Instruments Act.
4. Another complaint is filed by Respondent/Complainant
against husband of Revision applicant Shri. Rajesh Shukla. He was
convicted vide Judgment and order dated 1st March 2017.
Conviction is confirmed by appellate Court.
Sajakali Jamadar 2 of 3
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2024 04:02:42 :::
5-REVN-194-2020.doc
5. MOU has been executed between complainant and applicant
and her husband and 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 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.194 of 2020 is
allowed;
ii. Interim Application (St) No. 21298 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.11227 of 2024 and confirmed by the
Appellate Court vide Judgment and order dated 3 rd March,
2020 passed in Appeal No.146 of 2017 is quashed and set
aside and the applicant is acquitted for offence under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.
iv. Criminal Revision Application and all Interim
Applications are disposed of.
(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)
Sajakali Jamadar 3 of 3
