Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2018 DAILYLAW 3517 (BOM)

PRASHANT BABURAO BHINGARDIVE v. AMIT DILIP CHOUDHARI AND ANR

APEAL/1086/2018 · 2026-08-24

Criminal Appealbody2018

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

23) APEAL-1086.18 (CR).DOCX lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1086 OF 2018 Prashant Baburao Bhingardive : Appellant VERSUS Amit Dilip Choudhari And Anr : Respondents ______________________________________________________ Mr. Shivaji Kokare i/by Vishwanath Taklkute for the Appellant Ms. Swarrali B Chougule i/by Mr. Shailesh Chavan for Respondent No.1. Mr. Nitin B. Patil, APP for the Respondent No.2 – State. ______________________________________________________ CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J. DATED : 24 AUGUST 2026 PC:- 1. Heard Mr. Shivaji Kokare, learned Advocate for the Appellant, Ms. Swarrali Chougule, learned Advocate for the Respondent No.1 and Mr. Nitin B. Patil, learned APP for the Respondent No.2 – State. 2. By the present Appeal, the Appellant has sought for the following substantive relief :- “(b) The impugned Judgment dt order dt. 05.1.2016, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 4th, F. C. Satara in S.C.C. No. 1591 of 2012 may kindly be quashed and set aside and Respondent No.1 / accused be convicted and sentenced for having committed offence punishable u/s. 138 of NI Act.” 1 LAXMIKANT GOPAL CHANDAN Digitally signed by LAXMIKANT GOPAL CHANDAN Date: 2026.08.24 19:42:43 +0530 23) APEAL-1086.18 (CR).DOCX 3. Mr. Shivaji Kokare, learned Advocate for the Appellant, has tendered a copy of the Deed of Settlement executed between the Appellant and the Respondent No.1, the same is taken on record and marked with “X” for identification. He, on instructions from the Appellant, states that the subject matter of this Appeal is settled and therefore seeks leave to withdraw this Appeal. 4. Ms. Swarrali Chougule, learned Advocate for the Respondent No.1, states that the subject matter of this Appeal is settled in terms of the document (“X”). 5. Mr. Nitin Patil, learned APP for the Respondent No. 2, states that in view of the settlement, the Respondent No.2 – State does not oppose the request made by Mr. Shivaji Kokare, learned Advocate for the Appellant. 6. In view of the statement made by Mr. Shivaji Kokare, learned Advocate for the Appellant, leave is granted to withdraw this Appeal. 7. Criminal Appeal No.1086 of 2018 is dismissed as withdrawn. (ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) 2