← Library
Bombay High CourtCRMA/33/2024delay condoned

Mr. Santosh Bablo Kunkalekar @ Santosh Bablo Kuncolekar v. Shiroda Urban Coop Credit Society Ltd Rep. By Its Br. Manager Neeta Kalmekar And ORS

2024-05-06Hon'Ble Shri Justice Bharat P. Deshpande3 pages

Shakuntala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.412 OF 2024 (F) IN CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.33 OF 2024 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.188 OF 2024 (F),CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.187 OF 2024 (F) CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.412 OF 2024 (F) IN CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.33 OF 2024 SANTOSH BABLO KUNKALEKAR @ SANTOSH BABLO KUNCOLEKER ... APPLICANT

Versus

SHIRODA URBAN COOP SOCIETY LTD REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER NEETA S. KALMEKAR AND ANR ... RESPONDENTS CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.33 OF 2024 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.188 OF 2024 (F) MR. SANTOSH BABLO KUNKALEKAR @ SANTOSH BABLO KUNCOLEKAR ... APPLICANT

Versus

SHIRODA URBAN COOP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD REP. BY ITS BR. MANAGER NEETA KALMEKAR AND ORS ... RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.188 OF 2024 (F) SANTOSH BABLO KUNKALEKAR @ SANTOSH BABLO KUNCOLEKAR ... APPLICANT

Versus

THE SHIRODA URBAN COOP SOCIETY LTD REP. BY ITS BR. MANAGER NEETA

KALMEKAR AND ANR ... RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.187 OF 2024 (F) IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.188 OF 2024 (F) MR. SANTOSH BABLO KUNKALEKAR @ SANTOSH BABLO KUNCOLEKAR ... APPLICANT

Versus

SHIRODA URBAN COOP SOCIETY LTD REP. BY ITS BR. MANAGER NEETA KALMEKAR AND ANR ... RESPONDENTS Mr. Rohan Kuncolikar with Ms. Sangeeta Raul, Advocates for Applicant.

Ms. Sanjana Kakodkar, Advocate for Respondent No.1.Mr. Nikhil Vaze, Additional Public Prosecutor for State. CORAM:- BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, J.

DATED :- 06th May, 2024 P.C.

1.

Heard the learned counsel for the Applicant who submits that the entire amount is already paid to Respondent No. 1-Society. He further submits that an amount of 15% is deposited with this Court on 04.05.2024 for the purpose of compounding of the said offence. 2.

He placed on record a memo along with a copy of the demand draft.

3.

The learned counsel for the Respondent admits that the entire amount is paid to the Society and No Dues Certificate is also issued.

4.

She further submits that the Society has no objection for the compounding of the said offence.

5.

There is a delay in filing of the revision challenging the conviction. Since parties have filed a compounding application, the delay stands condoned.

6.

Application for compounding is allowed. The amount deposited by the Applicant i.e. Rs.54,200/-(Rupees Fifty-Four Thousand Two Hundred only) by demand draft shall be considered as the charges for compounding and are to be handed over to Goa State Legal Services Authority. The offense stands compounded. 7.

Judgment passed by the learned Magistrate and confirmed by the First Appellate Authority thereby convicting the Applicant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is hereby quashed and set aside, thereby permitting the parties to compound the said offense.

8.

Accordingly, the present application and the revision petition along with the pending application stands disposed of. 9.

Parties shall act on an authenticated copy of the order. BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, J.