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 Metropolitan Magistrate, 58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai in C.C. No. 1177/SS/2017, and the order dated 19th January 2019 passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 624 of 2018 by the Sessions Court at Mumbai. The case arose from a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 filed by respondent No. 2, Pravinbhai R Donda, against the petitioner. During the pendency of the writ petition, the parties amicably resolved their dispute. The petitioner's counsel tendered a memorandum of understanding/consent terms dated 1st October 2019, which was taken on record. Respondent No. 2's counsel also tendered an affidavit of respondent No. 2, confirming the settlement and stating that he had no grievance against the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 was personally present in court and confirmed the settlement upon specific query by the court. Both counsel jointly prayed that the petition be allowed and disposed of in light of the settlement. The court, considering the settlement and the affidavit, allowed the petition, set aside the impugned orders, and disposed of the petition. The court also directed that the rule be made absolute and that the petition be disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Negotiable Instruments Act - Section 138 - Compounding of Offence - Settlement between parties - The petitioner and respondent No. 2 (complainant) entered into a settlement and filed consent terms. Respondent No. 2 filed an affidavit stating no grievance against the petitioner. The court, taking into consideration the settlement and the affidavit, quashed the impugned orders and allowed the petition. Held that the dispute is resolved and proceedings can be quashed (Paras 3-7).
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 court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order dated 7th March 2018 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai in C.C. No. 1177/SS/2017 and the order dated 19th January 2019 passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 624 of 2018 by the Sessions Court at Mumbai. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
Law Points
- Settlement between parties
- compounding of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act
- 1881
- quashing of criminal proceedings
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (10) 85
Criminal Writ Petition No. 835 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, Pravinbhai R Donda
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition challenging orders passed in proceedings 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, 58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai in C.C. No. 1177/SS/2017 and the order dated 19th January 2019 passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 624 of 2018 by the Sessions Court at Mumbai.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was aggrieved by the orders passed in the cheque dishonour case 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. 1177/SS/2017, and the Sessions Court passed an order on 19th January 2019 in Criminal Revision Application No. 624 of 2018.
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 entire dispute is resolved and they have arrived at a settlement. Respondent No. 2 filed an affidavit stating no grievance against the petitioner. Both counsel prayed for allowing the petition based on the settlement.
Ratio Decidendi
When parties to a dispute under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 arrive at a settlement and the complainant has no grievance, the criminal proceedings can be quashed to promote amicable resolution.
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 7th March 2018 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai in C.C. No. 1177/SS/2017 and the order dated 19th January 2019 passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 624 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 heard the parties and passed the judgment on 4th October 2019.
Acts & Sections
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: 138
