Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Lalita Kamal Vyas, filed a Criminal Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court challenging an order dated 8th December 2017 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 43rd Court, Borivli, Mumbai in C.C. No. 2073/SS/2017 and the order dated 19th January 2019 passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 1107 of 2018 by the Sessions Court, Mumbai. The dispute pertained to a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for dishonour of cheque. During the pendency of the 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, Bhagwanbhai H. Donda, filed an affidavit confirming the settlement and stating he had no grievance against the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 was personally present in court and confirmed that the settlement was voluntary and without coercion. Both counsel jointly prayed for the petition to 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 quashed the proceedings in C.C. No. 2073/SS/2017. Rule was made absolute accordingly.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Negotiable Instruments Act - Compounding of Offence - Section 138 - Settlement - Where the parties have amicably settled the dispute and the complainant has no grievance, the court may quash the proceedings to secure the ends of justice. The court verified the voluntary nature of the settlement and allowed the petition. (Paras 1-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 should be quashed upon settlement between the complainant and accused.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 8th December 2017 passed in C.C. No. 2073/SS/2017 by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 43rd Court, Borivli, Mumbai and the order dated 19th January 2019 passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 1107 of 2018 by the Hon’ble Sessions Court at Mumbai are set aside. The proceedings in C.C. No. 2073/SS/2017 are quashed. Rule is made absolute.
Law Points
- Settlement between parties
- compounding of offence
- quashing of proceedings
- Negotiable Instruments Act
- 1881
- Section 138
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (10) 87
Criminal Writ Petition No. 837 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, Bhagwanbhai H. 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 to set aside the order dated 8th December 2017 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 43rd Court, Borivli, Mumbai in C.C. No. 2073/SS/2017 and the order dated 19th January 2019 passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 1107 of 2018 by the Sessions Court, Mumbai.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was aggrieved by the orders passed in the cheque dishonour proceedings.
Previous Decisions
The Metropolitan Magistrate passed an order on 8th December 2017 in C.C. No. 2073/SS/2017, and the Sessions Court dismissed the revision on 19th January 2019 in Criminal Revision Application No. 1107 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
The parties have amicably settled the dispute and Respondent No. 2 has no grievance against the Petitioner. The settlement is voluntary and without coercion.
Ratio Decidendi
Where the parties have amicably settled the dispute in a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the complainant confirms the settlement voluntarily, the court may quash the 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 Respondent No. 2 and the Petitioner is amicably settled, and Respondent No. 2 has voluntarily entered into such settlement and signed the terms of settlement with free will and without any coercion.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a Criminal Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court challenging the order dated 8th December 2017 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 43rd Court, Borivli, Mumbai in C.C. No. 2073/SS/2017 and the order dated 19th January 2019 passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 1107 of 2018 by the Sessions Court, Mumbai. 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
