Vijaya Sanjeev Yennam vs Seemaben Shantilal Puria And Anr
2026 Latest Caselaw 2185 Bom

Bombay High Court

Vijaya Sanjeev Yennam vs Seemaben Shantilal Puria And Anr on 26 February, 2026

Author: R.N.Laddha

Bench: R.N.Laddha

2026:BHC-AS:9886                                           Digitally
                                                           signed by
                                                           CHITRA
                                                  CHITRA   SANJAY
                                                  SANJAY   SONAWANE
                                                  SONAWANE Date:
                                                           2026.02.26
                                                           16:00:44
                                                           +0530
            Chitra Sonawane                                                                              902-REVN-292-2012.doc



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                     Criminal Revision Application No.292 of 2012

           Mrs Vijaya Sanjeev Yennam
           Age: 42 yrs, Occ : Housewife,
           R/O Block No.1, Bldg No.1,
           Kannamwar Nagar No.1, Vikhroli
           Mumbai.                                                                                   ... Applicant.
                   Vs.
           1. Seemaben Shantilal Puria
           Age:--
           R/of Flat No.305, B Wing,
           Maruti Enclave, Sector No.8
           Plot No.9, Airoli, Navi Mumbai.
           2. The State of Maharashtra                                                           ...    Respondents.
                                     ---
           Mr Omkar Nagvekar i/by Mr Prashant G Badole for the
           applicant.
           Mr Arfan Sait, APP for the respondent / State.
           Mr Jash B Vyas for respondent No.1.
                                     ---
                                       Coram : R.N.Laddha, J.

Date : 26 February 2026.

P.C. :

By the present revision application, the applicant seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 5 June 2012, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mumbai, in Criminal

____________________________________________

26 February 2026

Chitra Sonawane 902-REVN-292-2012.doc

Appeal No.447 of 2010 and the judgment and order dated 7 August 2010 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 31 Court, Vikhroli, Mumbai, in CC No.1116/SS/2009 whereby the applicant was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 (for short 'NI Act').

2. Heard Mr omkar Nagvekar, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant/ accused; Mr Jash Vyas, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1/complainant, and Mr Arfan Sait, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing respondent No.2/ State.

3. The learned Counsel for the contesting parties jointly submit that during the pendency of the present revision application, the applicant and respondent No.1 have amicably resolved their dispute. The learned Counsel for respondent No.1 submits that respondent No.1 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. 1 has received the settlement amount as agreed upon by the parties. The

____________________________________________

26 February 2026

Chitra Sonawane 902-REVN-292-2012.doc

learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing respondent No.2 submits that appropriate orders may be passed.

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, respondent No.1 confirms that she has no objection to setting aside the applicant's conviction and reiterates the contents of her consent affidavit dated 17 July 2025, which is taken on record and marked 'X' for identification.

____________________________________________

26 February 2026

Chitra Sonawane 902-REVN-292-2012.doc

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 7 August 2010 in CC No.1116/SS/2009 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 31 Court, Vikhroli, Mumbai and the judgment and order dated 5 June 2012, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mumbai, in Criminal Appeal No.447 of 2010 are hereby 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 Sanjabij Tari Vs. Kishore S. Borcar & Anr, 2025 INSC 1158, within six weeks from today.

7. The revision application stands disposed of accordingly.

[R. N. Laddha, J.]

____________________________________________

26 February 2026