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. 2072/SS/2017, and the order dated 19th January 2019 passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 1106 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, Bhagwanbhai H. 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 1st October 2019, and respondent No. 2 filed an affidavit confirming the settlement. Respondent No. 2 was personally present in court and stated that the dispute was amicably settled and that he had voluntarily entered into the settlement. The court, taking into consideration the settlement and the affidavit, allowed the petition and set aside the impugned orders. The court also directed that the amount deposited by the petitioner be paid to respondent No. 2.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Negotiable Instruments Act - Compounding of Offence - Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Settlement between parties - The petitioner and respondent No. 2 entered into a settlement and filed consent terms. The court, upon verifying the voluntary nature of the settlement and the presence of respondent No. 2, quashed the impugned orders and allowed the petition. Held that the dispute is amicably resolved and no grievance remains. (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 8th December 2017 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 43rd Court, Borivli, Mumbai in C.C. No. 2072/SS/2017 and the order dated 19th January 2019 passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 1106 of 2018 by the Sessions Court at Mumbai are set aside. The amount deposited by the petitioner shall be paid to respondent No. 2.
Law Points
- Settlement between parties
- compounding of offence under Section 138 NI Act
- quashing of criminal proceedings upon settlement
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (10) 89
Criminal Writ Petition No. 839 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 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate and Sessions Court in a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought setting aside of the order dated 8th December 2017 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate and the order dated 19th January 2019 passed by the Sessions Court.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and the revision against the conviction was dismissed.
Previous Decisions
The Metropolitan Magistrate passed an order on 8th December 2017 in C.C. No. 2072/SS/2017, and the Sessions Court dismissed the revision on 19th January 2019 in Criminal Revision Application No. 1106 of 2018.
Issues
Whether the impugned orders should be set aside in light of the settlement between the parties.
Submissions/Arguments
The parties have settled the dispute and respondent No. 2 has no grievance against the petitioner.
The petitioner and respondent No. 2 jointly prayed for allowing the petition based on the settlement.
Ratio Decidendi
When parties to a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 arrive at a settlement and the complainant confirms that the dispute is amicably resolved and no grievance remains, the court may quash the criminal proceedings and set aside the conviction.
Judgment Excerpts
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.
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.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a Criminal Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court challenging the order of conviction dated 8th December 2017 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate and the order dismissing revision dated 19th January 2019 passed by the Sessions Court. During the pendency of the writ petition, the parties settled the dispute and filed consent terms. The court allowed the petition and set aside the impugned orders.
Acts & Sections
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: 138
