Bombay High Court
Neeta Manish Vora vs Madhavdas M.K. And Anr on 29 January, 2024
Author: Prakash D. Naik
Bench: Prakash D. Naik
2024:BHC-AS:7790
7-REVN-442-2016.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2639 OF 2016
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 442 OF 2016
Neeta Manish Vora ...Petitioner
Versus
Madhavdas M.K. And Anr. ...Respondents
....
Mr. Jayant Bardeskar, Advocate for the Applicant.
Ms. Jahnavi Vora i/by Mr. Yashpal Jain, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Y. Y. Dabake, APP for the Respondent - State.
CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
DATE : 29th JANUARY, 2024.
P.C.:
1. The revision applicant and Accused No.2 Manish Vora
were convicted for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'N.I. Act') vide Judgment and
Order dated 10th March, 2011 passed by learned Metropolitan
Magistrate 6th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai in C.C. No.1872/SS/2007
and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment of one month each
and pay fine of Rs.5,00,418/- and in default of payment of fine, to
suffer simple imprisonment for one month.
Digitally signed
SUNNY by SUNNY
ANKUSHRAO
ANKUSHRAO THOTE
2. The revision applicant and Accused No.2 preferred
THOTE Date: 2024.02.16
16:57:53 +0530
Criminal Appeal No.75 of 2011 and 76 of 2011 before Court of
Sunny Thote 1 of 4
::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/02/2024 06:32:30 :::
7-REVN-442-2016.doc
Sessions for Greater Bombay challenging the Judgment of trial
Court. The original complainant filed Criminal Revision Application
No.114 of 2011 before the Sessions Court challenging inadequate
sentence. The learned Sessions Judge vide Judgment and Order
dated 29th July, 2016 allowed the Appeal No.75 of 2011 preferred
by the Accused No.2 Manish Vora and conviction against him was
set aside. The Appeal preferred by the revision applicant was
dismissed. The Revision Application No.114 of 2011 preferred by
the complainant was partly allowed. The Judgment and Order
passed by learned Magistrate was modified. The Accused No.1 was
sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one month and
directed to pay amount of Rs.9,30,836/- as compensation to the
complainant.
3. The Criminal Revision Application No.442 of 2016 is
preferred before this Court challenging the Judgments of trial Court
and Sessions Court. The Criminal Writ Petition No.2639 of 2016 is
preferred by convict challenging order of enhancement passed by
Sessions Court.
4. During the pendency of this proceedings, the parties have
arrived at settlement and executed consent terms. Vide Order dated
12th June, 2018, this Court had recorded that the parties have
Sunny Thote 2 of 4
::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/02/2024 06:32:30 :::
7-REVN-442-2016.doc
arrived at settlement and the consent terms were taken on record.
The complainant and Accused were present in the Court and they
have confirmed the execution of consent terms. It was agreed
between the parties that the claim of complainant is settled for an
amount of Rs.10,00,000/-. The revision applicant had deposited
Rs.6,00,000/- and for the balance amount of Rs.4,00,000/- it was
agreed that the said amount will be paid in three installments on
8th July, 2018, 8th August, 2018 and 8th September, 2018. Since, the
balance amount was to be paid to the complainant in future course
of time the revision application was kept pending by permitting the
complainant to withdraw the amount of Rs.6,00,000/- deposited by
the revision applicant subject to the final decision of the revision
application.
5. It is submitted that during the pendency of this
proceedings the complainant and partners of complainant's firm
have expired. However, in view of settlement the balance amount
of Rs.4,00,000/- as recorded in Order dated 12th June, 2018 was
paid to the complainant when he was alive. It is submitted that
since the entire amount is paid to the complainant and in view of
consent terms executed between the parties this proceedings can be
disposed off by allowing the Petition/Revision Application and
Sunny Thote 3 of 4
::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/02/2024 06:32:30 :::
7-REVN-442-2016.doc
setting aside the Judgment of conviction.
6. Considering the aforesaid circumstances, Petition and
Revision Application can be disposed off by setting aside the
Judgment of conviction.
ORDER
i. Criminal Revision Application No.442 of 2016 is allowed;
ii. The Judgment and Order dated 10 th March, 2011 passed
by learned Metropolitan Magistrate 6th Court, Mazgaon,
Mumbai as well as the Judgment and Order dated 29 th July,
2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater
Bombay are set aside.
iii. In view of the settlement the Applicant is acquitted for
the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act.
iv. Criminal Revision Application and Criminal Writ Petition
stand disposed off.
(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)
Sunny Thote 4 of 4
