Pratap Pednekar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1184776
CourtMumbai High Court
Decided OnApr-07-2016
Case NumberCriminal Writ Petition Nos. 1224 of 2016, 1225, 1226 & 1227 of 2016
JudgeA.S. Gadkari
AppellantPratap Pednekar
RespondentState of Maharashtra and Another
Excerpt:
negotiable instruments act, 1881 section 138, section 147 compounding of offence quashment of conviction court held petitioner and the respondent no.1 are permitted to compound offence under section 138 of the act and conviction and sentence imposed on petitioner under section 138 of the act in all four cases by trial court and upheld by appellate court is hereby quashed and set aside petitions allowed case referred: damodar s. prabhu vs sayed babalam h. 2010 (5) scc 663 (para 2). comparative citation: 2016 all mr (cri) 3912, p.c. 1. the petitioner and the respondent no.2 have compounded the offence under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act and has filed the consent terms dated 16.3.2016. as per the consent terms all the criminal complaints have been compounded which are the subject-matter in the aforesaid writ petitions and the petitioner herein had agreed to pay a lump sum amount of rs.7,00,000/- to the respondent no.2. the record further discloses that the respondent no.2 has already received an amount of rs.7,00,000/-. he has also executed a receipt to that effect dated 16.3.2016 which is annexed to the present petitions. 2. in view of the judgment of the supreme court reported in the case of damodar s. prabhu vs sayed babalam h. reported in 2010 (5) scc 663 this court had directed the petitioner to deposit 10% of the compounded amount in the registry of this court within a period of two weeks from 23.3.2016. the learned counsel for the petitioner today has produced the receipt dated 4.4.2016 along with the acknowledgement endorsed by the registry in that behalf. the petitioner has deposited a sum of rs.70,000/- in the registry of this court towards the cost of settlement in view of the guidelines issued by the supreme court. 3. in view of the above, the petitioner and the respondent no.1 are permitted to compound the offence under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act and the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act in all aforesaid four cases by the learned trial court and upheld by the appellate court is hereby quashed and set aside and the writ petitions are allowed in terms of prayer clauses (b) and (c). 4. as far as the costs deposited by the petitioner in the registry of this court by way of pay order, dated 4.4.2016, is concerned, the registry is hereby directed to transfer the said amount and in favour of the maharashtra state legal services authority, 105, high court (p.w.d.) building, first floor, fort, mumbai 400-032, within a period of four weeks from the date of this order. the said cost be accepted by the maharashtra state legal services authority as the cost imposed upon the petitioner in the present writ petitions. 5. the petitions are allowed in the aforesaid terms.
Judgment:

P.C.

1. The petitioner and the respondent no.2 have compounded the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and has filed the Consent Terms dated 16.3.2016. As per the Consent Terms all the criminal complaints have been compounded which are the subject-matter in the aforesaid writ petitions and the petitioner herein had agreed to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.7,00,000/- to the respondent No.2. The record further discloses that the respondent no.2 has already received an amount of Rs.7,00,000/-. He has also executed a receipt to that effect dated 16.3.2016 which is annexed to the present petitions.

2. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs Sayed Babalam H. reported in 2010 (5) SCC 663 this Court had directed the petitioner to deposit 10% of the compounded amount in the Registry of this Court within a period of two weeks from 23.3.2016. The learned counsel for the petitioner today has produced the receipt dated 4.4.2016 along with the acknowledgement endorsed by the Registry in that behalf. The petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs.70,000/- in the Registry of this Court towards the cost of settlement in view of the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court.

3. In view of the above, the petitioner and the respondent no.1 are permitted to compound the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in all aforesaid four cases by the learned Trial Court and upheld by the Appellate Court is hereby quashed and set aside and the writ petitions are allowed in terms of prayer clauses (b) and (c).

4. As far as the costs deposited by the petitioner in the Registry of this Court by way of Pay Order, dated 4.4.2016, is concerned, the Registry is hereby directed to transfer the said amount and in favour of the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority, 105, High Court (P.W.D.) Building, First Floor, Fort, Mumbai 400-032, within a period of four weeks from the date of this order. The said cost be accepted by the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority as the cost imposed upon the petitioner in the present writ petitions.

5. The petitions are allowed in the aforesaid terms.