Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Lalita Kamal Vyas, filed a Criminal Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court challenging an order dated 6th September 2017 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 48th Court, Andheri, Mumbai in C.C. No. 4159/SS/2017, and the order dated 19th January 2019 passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 1101 of 2018 by the Sessions Court at Mumbai. The dispute pertained to a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (dishonour of cheque) filed by Respondent No. 2, Jaydeep K. Italia, against the petitioner. During the pendency of the writ petition, the parties resolved their dispute amicably. The petitioner's counsel tendered a memorandum of understanding/consent terms dated 1st October 2019, which was taken on record. Respondent No. 2 filed an affidavit stating that he had no grievance against the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 was personally present in court and confirmed the settlement. Both counsel jointly prayed for the petition to be allowed and disposed of in light of the settlement. The court, after verifying the consent of Respondent No. 2, allowed the petition, set aside the impugned orders, and quashed the proceedings. The court did not delve into the merits of the case as the matter was settled.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Negotiable Instruments Act - Compounding of Offence - Section 138 - Settlement - The petitioner sought quashing of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The parties arrived at a settlement and the complainant filed an affidavit stating no grievance. The court, after verifying the complainant's consent, allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings. Held that when the dispute is resolved amicably, proceedings under Section 138 can be quashed. (Paras 1-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 can be quashed on the basis of a settlement between the complainant and the accused.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned orders dated 6th September 2017 and 19th January 2019, and quashed the proceedings in C.C. No. 4159/SS/2017.
Law Points
- Settlement between parties
- compounding of offence
- quashing of proceedings
- Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act
- 1881
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (10) 83
Criminal Writ Petition No. 833 of 2019
Mr. Kapil P. Dave for Petitioner, Mr. Rajender Singh Saluja for Respondent No. 2, Mr. A.R. Patil, APP for Respondent – State
The State of Maharashtra and Jaydeep K. Italia
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal Writ Petition challenging orders in a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought setting aside of the order dated 6th September 2017 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate and the order dated 19th January 2019 passed by the Sessions Court, and quashing of the proceedings.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was aggrieved by the orders passed in the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Previous Decisions
The Metropolitan Magistrate passed an order on 6th September 2017 in C.C. No. 4159/SS/2017, and the Sessions Court passed an order on 19th January 2019 in Criminal Revision Application No. 1101 of 2018.
Issues
Whether the criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 can be quashed on the basis of a settlement between the complainant and the accused.
Submissions/Arguments
The parties have resolved the dispute and entered into a settlement. Respondent No. 2 has filed an affidavit stating no grievance. Both counsel jointly pray for allowing the petition.
Ratio Decidendi
When the parties have amicably settled the dispute and the complainant has no grievance, the court can quash proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 to secure the ends of justice.
Judgment Excerpts
Learned counsel appearing for Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 submit that, the entire dispute is resolved, and the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 have arrived at a settlement and Respondent No. 2 has no grievance against the Petitioner.
Respondent No. 2 is personally present in the Court. On a specific query to Respondent No. 2, he stated that the dispute between the parties is resolved.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a Criminal Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court challenging the order dated 6th September 2017 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 48th Court, Andheri, Mumbai in C.C. No. 4159/SS/2017 and the order dated 19th January 2019 passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 1101 of 2018 by the Sessions Court at Mumbai. During the pendency of the petition, the parties settled the dispute and filed consent terms and an affidavit. The court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings.
Acts & Sections
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: 138
