Rajeev Khandelwal vs The State Of Maharashtra
2025 Latest Caselaw 1492 Bom

Bombay High Court

Rajeev Khandelwal vs The State Of Maharashtra on 6 August, 2025

Author: R.N. Laddha

Bench: R.N. Laddha

          2025:BHC-AS:33502

                      Mamta Kale                                                                                       918-revn-528-2018.docx


                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                              CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                         Revision Application No. 528 of 2018
                      Rajeev Khandelwal
                      Age 54 years, Occ. Business,
                      R/at. M 106, Saket,
                      New Delhi.                                                                                       ... Applicant
                            versus
                      1. The State of Maharashtra

                      2. Ganesh Benzoplast Ltd.
                      145-A, Dr. Viegas Street,
                      Kaladevi Road,
                      Mumbai - 400 002.                                                                                ...Respondent
                                                   ----
                      Mr Aabad Ponda, Senior Advocate a/w Mr S S Sobti, Mr
                      Prabhakar M Jadhav, Mr Veerdhaval Kakade, for the Applicant.
                      Mr Anand Shalgaonkar, APP, for Respondent No.1 / State.
                      Mr H H Nagi a/w Mr Niranjana Pradhan, Mr Omna Shinde,
                      Mr Dev Shah, Mr Iram Indiwale, Ms Supriya Mishra i/b Nagi
                      & Associates, for Respondent No.2.
   MAMTA
   AMAR
   KALE
Digitally signed by
                                                   ----
MAMTA AMAR KALE




                                                         Coram: R.N. Laddha, J.

Date: 2025.08.06 18:04:41 +0530

Date: 6 August 2025 P.C.:

By the present revision application, the applicant seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 13 August 2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai, in Criminal Appeal No.341 of 2017, and the judgment and order dated 12

__________________________________________________

6 August 2025

Mamta Kale 918-revn-528-2018.docx

April 2017 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 33rd Court, Ballard Pier, Mumbai, in CC No.5953/SS/2015, whereby the applicant was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'NI Act').

2. Heard Mr Aabad Ponda, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant/ accused, Mr Anand Shalgaonkar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing respondent No.1/ State, and Mr H H Nagi, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2/ complainant.

3. The learned Counsel for the contesting parties jointly submit that during the pendency of the present revision application, the applicant and respondent No.2 have amicably resolved their dispute and executed consent terms dated 29 July 2025. The learned Counsel for respondent No.2 submits that respondent No.2 has no objection to setting aside the concurrent judgment and order of conviction passed by the Courts below. The learned Counsel also submits that respondent No.2 has received the settlement amount as agreed upon by the parties. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing respondent No.1 submits that appropriate orders may be passed.

__________________________________________________

6 August 2025

Mamta Kale 918-revn-528-2018.docx

4. The offence under Section 138 of the NI Act pertains specifically to disputes arising from a commercial transaction between two private parties. The legislature introduced criminal prosecution for cheque dishonour cases to ensure the credibility of transactions involving negotiable instruments. It is well-established that the primary objective of Section 138 is to compensate the complainant. Furthermore, the NI Act does not bar the parties from reaching a settlement, whether during the complaint's pendency or after the accused's conviction.

5. The contesting parties are present before this Court and identified by their respective Counsel. When questioned, the authorised representative of respondent No.2 confirms that respondent No.2 has no objection to setting aside the applicant's conviction and reiterates the contents of his consent affidavit dated 30 July 2025. The consent terms dated 29 July 2025 and the affidavit of respondent No.2 dated 30 July 2025 are taken on record and marked 'X (colly)' for identification.

6. Since the parties have amicably settled their dispute, this Court sees no difficulty in setting aside the applicant's conviction. As a result, the judgment and order dated 12 April 2017 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 33 rd Court, Ballard Pier, Mumbai, in CC No.5953/SS/2015,

__________________________________________________

6 August 2025

Mamta Kale 918-revn-528-2018.docx

convicting the applicant under section 138 of the NI Act, and the judgment and order dated 13 August 2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai, in Criminal Appeal No.341 of 2017, confirming the applicant's conviction, are set aside, and the applicant is acquitted subject to the condition that the applicant shall deposit the cost with the State Legal Services Authority in accordance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H., (2010) 5 SCC 663, within six weeks from today.

7. The revision application stands disposed of accordingly.

(R.N. Laddha, J.)

__________________________________________________

6 August 2025