S. JAYCHANDRAN SALAI NADARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

       Digitally
       signed by
       VINA
VINA   ARVIND
ARVIND KHADPE
KHADPE Date:
       2026.09.24                                                      [email protected]
       19:29:15
       +0530



                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                              CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 229 OF 2005

                    S. Jaychandran Salai Nadar                          … Applicant
                          Versus
                    State of Maharashtra and anr.                       … Respondents

                                                     ***
                    Ms. Aneeta M. Vasani for Applicant.
                    Mr. Vishal N. Nevshe for Respondent Nos.2A, 2B and 2C.
                    Ms. Manisha R. Tidke, APP for the Respondent – State.
                    Mr. S. Jaychandran Salai Nadar, Applicant – in person, present.
                    Ms. Reminroja Algar Servai, Respondent No.2a, present in person.
                    Mr. Rahul Algar Servai, Respondent No.2b, present in person.
                    Ms. Priya Algar Servai, Respondent No.2c, present in person.
                                                     ***

                                                           CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
                                                           DATE    : 24 SEPTEMBER, 2026
                    P.C. :

                    1.       Learned counsel for the Revision Applicant and learned
                    Counsel for the proposed legal heirs of Respondent No.2 have jointly
                    tendered Consent Terms dated 24.09.2026 along with affidavits of
                    the proposed Respondent Nos. 2a, 2b and 2c who are wife, son and
                    daughter of the deceased Respondent No.2 – Complainant. It is
                    jointly submitted that since amount is received, parties have amivably
                    settled the matter.

                    2.       The Applicant is the original accused in proceedings arising out
                    of section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.

                    3.       Consent Terms with supporting Affidavits and self attested


                    Vina Khadpe                             1
                                                 [email protected]




identity proofs (page nos.1 to 17) are taken on record and marked as
‘X’ for identification.

4.       The Applicant as well as the proposed Respondent Nos.2a, 2b
and 2c are present in the Court who are identified by their respective
Advocates. Respondent Nos.2a, 2b and 2c i.e. wife, son and daughter
of the original complainant, on a query by the Court, stated that they
have signed the Consent Terms after understanding contents therein
and implications thereof. They have confirmed that the original
complainant Respondent        No.2   had   received   the     amount         of
Rs.11,50,000/- paid by the Applicant. They have also confirmed that
all claims against the Applicant is fully satisfied and they have no
objection to quash and set aside the impugned order.

5.       Learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that, by mistake,
Interim Application No.894 of 2006 for bringing the proposed legal
heirs in this Revision, is filed in another connected Criminal Revision
Application No.228 of 2005. Be that as it may.

6.       Considering the Consent Terms and supporting affidavits filed
by the parties including the proposed legal heirs of Respondent No.2
– Complainant, Revision Applicant is permitted to amend the cause
title of the Revision Application and bring on record the proposed
Respondent No.2a, 2b and 2c as shown in the Consent Terms.
Amendment to be carried out within a period of one week from
today.

7.       Considering the aforesaid, Revision Application is allowed.
Impugned order dated 22.12.2004 passed by the Metropolitan

Vina Khadpe                           2
                                                   [email protected]




Magistrate, 30th Court, Kurla, in CC No.464/SS/2004 and order dated
02.07.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai
in Appeal No.12 of 2005 are set aside. Applicant’s conviction under
said orders is set aside and he is acquitted of the offence involved.
Applicant’s bail bond / surety, if any, stands discharged.

8.     Since, the original complainant has expired and the amount is
already paid and the parties have decided to settle the dispute
amicably, penalty is not imposed.

9.     Criminal Revision Application is disposed of in the above
terms. No order as to costs.

                                               (M.M. SATHAYE, J.)




Vina Khadpe                           3