[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Indrajit I. Rastogi vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 November, 2025
Author: R.N. Laddha
Bench: R.N. Laddha
2025:BHC-AS:51970
Mamta Kale 11-revn-244-2019.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Revision Application No. 244 of 2019
with
Criminal Application No. 250 of 2019 (No papers)
Indrajit I. Rastogi
Aged 51 years, Indian
Inhabitant, Mumbai Business,
R/at: 301/A, Phase -4, Ramdeo
Park, Mira Road (E), Thane. ... Applicant
versus
1. The State of Maharasha
Served through Public Prosecutor
having office at P.W.D. Building
High Court Bombay.
2. Shri Umeshchandra S. Mishra
R/at: Mishra Chawl, Indira Nagar,
R.W.G. 255, Laljipada, Kandivali(W),
Mumbai - 67. ...Respondents
----
Mr Shriniwas Singh, for the Applicant.
Mr S S Pednekar, APP, for Respondent / State.
MAMTA
Ms Richa Singh, for Respondent No.2.
AMAR KALE
Digitally signed by
MAMTA AMAR KALE
Date: 2025.11.28
19:24:17 +0530 ----
Coram: R.N. Laddha, J.
Date: 28 November 2025
P.C.:
. By the present revision application, the applicant seeks to
__________________________________________________
28 November 2025
Mamta Kale 11-revn-244-2019.docx
challenge the judgment and order dated 21 February 2019
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Borivali
Division, Dindoshi, Mumbai, in Criminal Appeal No.92 of
2011, and the judgment and order dated 12 September 2011
passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 43rd Court,
Borivali, Mumbai, in C.C. No.518/SS/2007, whereby the
applicant was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'NI Act').
2. I have heard Mr Shriniwas Singh, the learned Counsel
appearing on behalf of the applicant / accused, Mr SS Pednekar,
the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing
respondent No.1 / State, and Ms Richa Singh, the learned
Counsel appearing for 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 the contesting respondents have
amicably resolved their dispute and executed consent terms
dated 28 November 2025. The learned Counsel for respondent
No.2 submits that the complainant has no objection to setting
aside the concurrent judgment and order of conviction passed
by the Courts below. The learned Counsel also submits that the
contesting respondent has received the settlement amount in
__________________________________________________
28 November 2025
Mamta Kale 11-revn-244-2019.docx
accordance with the consent terms. The contesting parties have
placed on record a copy of the consent terms.
4. The learned APP for respondent No.1 / State submits that
appropriate orders may be passed.
5. The offence under Section 138 of the NI Act is confined
to two private parties arising from a commercial transaction.
However, to ensure the credibility of transactions involving
negotiable instruments, the legislature has provided for criminal
prosecution in cases of cheque dishonour. It is a settled
position in law that the primary objective of Section 138 is
compensation for the complainant. The NI Act does not
prevent the parties from reaching a settlement, whether during
the pendency of the complaint and even after the accused has
been convicted. Since the parties have amicably resolved their
dispute, this Court finds no impediment in setting aside the
applicant's conviction.
6. The contesting parties are present before this Court and
identified by their respective Counsel. When questioned,
respondent No.2 confirms that he has no objection to setting
aside the applicant's conviction. The parties agree to abide by
the terms and conditions set forth in the consent terms. The
__________________________________________________
28 November 2025
Mamta Kale 11-revn-244-2019.docx
consent terms are taken on record and marked 'X' for
identification.
7. In these circumstances, the judgment and order dated 12
September 2011 passed by the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate, 43rd Court, Borivali, Mumbai, in CC
No.518/SS/2007, convicting the applicant under Section 138 of
the NI Act, and the judgment and order dated 21 February
2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Borivali
Division, Dindoshi, Mumbai, in Criminal Appeal No.92 of
2011, 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 Supreme
Court in the case of Sanjabij Tari Vs Kishore S Borcar & Anr.
2025 INSC 1158, within six weeks from today.
8. The revision application stands disposed of accordingly.
As a sequel, pending application also stands disposed of.
(R.N. Laddha, J.)
__________________________________________________
28 November 2025
