Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

PRASAD KAMALKANT KAJBAJEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided
Disposal
Disposed Off

Holding

The conviction under Section 138 is set aside and the applicant is acquitted because the parties have settled the dispute and the complainant has received the compensation.

Summary

The applicant, Prasad Kamalkant Kajbaje, was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and sentenced to 15 days imprisonment with a compensation of Rs.25,000 to the complainant. He appealed, but the Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal. During the pendency of a criminal revision, the complainant (Respondent No.2) filed an affidavit stating that the parties had amicably settled and he had received the compensation, and he had no objection to setting aside the earlier judgments. The court, considering the settlement and the petty amount involved, allowed the revision application, quashed the conviction order, and acquitted the applicant. The bail bond was cancelled and any surety discharged, with no penalty imposed. The applicant was also permitted to withdraw the amount deposited with interest.

Issues considered

  • Whether a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be set aside on the ground of an amicable settlement and receipt of compensation by the complainant.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • Section 138 NI Act
  • criminal revision
  • settlement
  • acquittal
  • compensation
  • bail discharge

Judgment

                                                                         2.cri.revn.172.2005.doc




                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                              CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.172 OF 2005

                    Prasad Kamalkant Kajbaje                      … Applicant
       Digitally
       signed by          Versus
       VINA
VINA   ARVIND       The State of Maharashtra & anr.          … Respondents
ARVIND KHADPE
KHADPE Date:                                        ***
       2026.08.28
       19:10:20
       +0530        Mr. Digvijay S. Kachare a/w Mr. Anay Joshi i/b. Mr. Kuldeep S. Patil
                    for the Applicant.
                    Mr. Rushikesh S. Salunkhe i/b. Mr. Pratap Patil for Respondent No.2
                    Ms. R. S. Tendulkar, APP for Respondent-State.
                                                     ***

                                                          CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
                                                          DATE     : 28 AUGUST, 2026
                    P.C. :

                    1.       The Applicant is the original complainant in a case arising out
                    of Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.

                    2.       The concerned Magistrate convicted the Applicant by order
                    dated 23.10.2002 sentencing him to suffer simple imprisonment of
                    15 days with compensation of Rs.25000/- to be paid to the
                    Complainant. Criminal Appeal No.43 of 2003 filed by the Applicant
                    was dismissed by the impugned order dated 26.04.2005 by the
                    concerned Sessions Judge.

                    3.       Learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 / original complainant
                    has tendered an affidavit dated 02.05.2026 sworn by Respondent
                    No.2, which is taken on record and marked ‘X’ for identification.



                    Vina Khadpe                            1
                                                   2.cri.revn.172.2005.doc




4.     Respondent No.2 has stated in the said affidavit that during
pendency of the Revision Application, the parties have amicably
settled the dispute and he has received the amount of cheque
(Rs.25,000/-) from the Applicant and he does not wish to take any
further steps and has no objection if the judgment/order of the Trial
Court and Appellate Court are set aside.

5.     Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 states that Respondent
No.2 has sworn the said affidavit in the concerned criminal Court at
Murud. He therefore submits to appropriate order of the Court.

6.     In view of the above, Criminal Revision Application is allowed.
Impugned order dated 26.04.2005 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge,
Raigad-Alibag is quashed and set aside. Crim. Appeal No. 43 of 2002
is allowed thereby setting aside Order of conviction dated 23.10.2002
passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Murud-Raigad in S.C.C.
No.130/2000. The Applicant is acquitted of offence under section
138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. His bail bond is cancelled and
surety, if any, stands discharged.

7.     Considering the petty amount involved and since the parties
have settled the matter amicably, penalty is not charged.

8.     In view of above, the Applicant is at liberty to withdraw the
amount deposited by him in this Court, along with accrued interest, if
any.

                                             (M.M. SATHAYE, J.)



Vina Khadpe                          2


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.