Mamta Kale 11-revn-244-2019.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Revision Application No. 244 of 2019 with Criminal Application No. 250 of 2019 (No papers) Indrajit I. Rastogi Aged 51 years, Indian Inhabitant, Mumbai Business, R/at: 301/A, Phase -4, Ramdeo Park, Mira Road (E), Thane. … Applicant versus 1. The State of Maharasha Served through Public Prosecutor having office at P.W.D. Building High Court Bombay. 2. Shri Umeshchandra S. Mishra R/at: Mishra Chawl, Indira Nagar, R.W.G. 255, Laljipada, Kandivali(W), Mumbai – 67. …Respondents ---- Mr Shriniwas Singh, for the Applicant. Mr S S Pednekar, APP, for Respondent / State. Ms Richa Singh, for Respondent No.2. ---- Coram: R.N. Laddha, J. Date: 28 November 2025 P.C.: . By the present revision application, the applicant seeks to __________________________________________________ 28 November 2025 MAMTA AMAR KALE Digitally signed by MAMTA AMAR KALE Date: 2025.11.28 19:24:17 +0530 Mamta Kale 11-revn-244-2019.docx challenge the judgment and order dated 21 February 2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Borivali Division, Dindoshi, Mumbai, in Criminal Appeal No.92 of 2011, and the judgment and order dated 12 September 2011 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 43rd Court, Borivali, Mumbai, in C.C. No.518/SS/2007, whereby the applicant was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘NI Act’). 2. I have heard Mr Shriniwas Singh, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant / accused, Mr SS Pednekar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing respondent No.1 / State, and Ms Richa Singh, the learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 / complainant. 3. The learned Counsel for the contesting parties jointly submit that during the pendency of the present revision application, the applicant and the contesting respondents have amicably resolved their dispute and executed consent terms dated 28 November 2025. The learned Counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the complainant has no objection to setting aside the concurrent judgment and order of conviction passed by the Courts below. The learned Counsel also submits that the contesting respondent has received the settlement amount in __________________________________________________ 28 November 2025 Mamta Kale 11-revn-244-2019.docx accordance with the consent terms. The contesting parties have placed on record a copy of the consent terms. 4. The learned APP for respondent No.1 / State submits that appropriate orders may be passed. 5. The offence under Section 138 of the NI Act is confined to two private parties arising from a commercial transaction. However, to ensure the credibility of transactions involving negotiable instruments, the legislature has provided for criminal prosecution in cases of cheque dishonour. It is a settled position in law that the primary objective of Section 138 is compensation for the complainant. The NI Act does not prevent the parties from reaching a settlement, whether during the pendency of the complaint and even after the accused has been convicted. Since the parties have amicably resolved their dispute, this Court finds no impediment in setting aside the applicant’s conviction. 6. The contesting parties are present before this Court and identified by their respective Counsel. When questioned, respondent No.2 confirms that he has no objection to setting aside the applicant’s conviction. The parties agree to abide by the terms and conditions set forth in the consent terms. The __________________________________________________ 28 November 2025 Mamta Kale 11-revn-244-2019.docx consent terms are taken on record and marked ‘X’ for identification. 7. In these circumstances, the judgment and order dated 12 September 2011 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 43rd Court, Borivali, Mumbai, in CC No.518/SS/2007, convicting the applicant under Section 138 of the NI Act, and the judgment and order dated 21 February 2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Borivali Division, Dindoshi, Mumbai, in Criminal Appeal No.92 of 2011, confirming the applicant’s conviction, are set aside and the applicant is acquitted subject to the condition that the applicant shall deposit the cost with the State Legal Services Authority in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjabij Tari Vs Kishore S Borcar & Anr. 2025 INSC 1158, within six weeks from today. 8. The revision application stands disposed of accordingly. As a sequel, pending application also stands disposed of. (R.N. Laddha, J.) __________________________________________________ 28 November 2025