Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Lalita Kamal Vyas, filed a Criminal Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court challenging an order dated 7th March 2018 passed by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai in C.C. No. 1178/SS/2017, and the order dated 19th January 2019 passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 631 of 2018 by the Sessions Court at Mumbai. The dispute arose out of a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 filed by Respondent No. 2, Dhirajlal L Donda, against the petitioner. During the pendency of the writ petition, the parties arrived at a settlement. The petitioner's counsel tendered a memorandum of understanding/consent terms dated 01.10.2019, which was taken on record. Respondent No. 2 filed an affidavit stating that the entire dispute was resolved and he had no grievance against the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 was personally present in court and confirmed the settlement. Both parties jointly prayed for the petition to be allowed and disposed of. The court, taking into consideration the settlement and the affidavit, allowed the petition, set aside the impugned orders, and quashed the proceedings in C.C. No. 1178/SS/2017. Rule was made absolute accordingly.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Negotiable Instruments Act - Compounding of Offence - Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Petition filed by accused challenging orders in cheque dishonour case - Parties entered into settlement and complainant filed affidavit stating no grievance - Court allowed petition and quashed proceedings - Held that upon settlement and complainant's consent, proceedings can be quashed (Paras 1-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 can be quashed upon settlement between the complainant and the accused.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 7th March 2018 passed in C.C. No. 1178/SS/2017 by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai and the order dated 19th January 2019 passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 631 of 2018 by the Sessions Court at Mumbai are set aside. The proceedings in C.C. No. 1178/SS/2017 are quashed. Rule is made absolute.
Law Points
- Settlement between parties
- compounding of offence under Section 138 NI Act
- quashing of criminal proceedings upon compromise
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (10) 84
Criminal Writ Petition No. 834 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, Dhirajlal L Donda
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 7th March 2018 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate and the order dated 19th January 2019 passed by the Sessions Court.
Filing Reason
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 7th March 2018 in C.C. No. 1178/SS/2017, and the Sessions Court dismissed the revision on 19th January 2019.
Issues
Whether the criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 should be quashed upon settlement between the parties.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 jointly submitted that the dispute was resolved and they had arrived at a settlement. Respondent No. 2 filed an affidavit stating he had no grievance against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
When parties in a Section 138 NI Act case settle the dispute and the complainant files an affidavit stating no grievance, the court may quash the criminal proceedings 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 and he has no grievance against the Petitioner.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a criminal writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate dated 7th March 2018 and the order of the Sessions Court dated 19th January 2019. During the pendency of the petition, the parties settled the dispute. The court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings.
Acts & Sections
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: 138
