3. APL 13-2021.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 13 OF 2021

Danish Naseem Qureshi

...Applicant

Versus

State of Maharashtra and Anr.

...Respondents

Mr. M.A. Adenwala for the Applicant.

Ms. S.V.Sonawane, A.P.P for the Respondent No.1-State.

Mr. Satish Muley a/w Mr. Sajid Qureshi for the Respondent No.2.

CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

DATE : 17

^th MARCH, 2021

P.C. :

1.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2.

By this application, the applicant has impugned the order dated

23/10/2020 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 14^th Court,

Girgaon, Mumbai below Exh.19 in C.C.No.1408/SS/2019, by which the

applicant was directed to pay 20% of the amount of subject cheque as

interim compensation to the respondent No.2 (original complainant), within

60 days from the date of order.

Wakodikar

1/4

3. APL 13-2021.doc

3.

Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that there was no

justification for the learned Judge to direct the applicant to deposit the said

interim compensation, inasmuch as, the transaction was not a commercial

transaction. He submitted that the respondent No.2’s parents under

coercion and threat obtained a blank cheque from the applicant and that the

same was subsequently filled in by them. He further submitted that the

applicant had sent a complaint letter dated 19/12/2018 to the Commissioner

of Police and Station House Officer, Nagpada Police Station for registering

an FIR as against Respondent No.2’s uncle and father, alleging criminal

intimidation and threat to his (applicant) life and threat to business and

profession.

4.

Learned Counsel for the applicant relied on the judgment of the

Apex Court in the case of Makwana Mangaldas Tulsidas V/s. State of

Gujarat and Anr.¹ and K.S.Rajan V/s. V. Siththarthan² of the Madras

High Court.

5.

Learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 opposed the

application. He submitted that no interference is warranted in the

impugned order dated 23/10/2020, directing the applicant to pay 20% of

1

SLP Criminal 5464/2016 Dtd.05/03/2020

2

Cri.O.P.(MD) Nos.1991 & 1992/2020 Dtd.05/03/2020

Wakodikar

2/4

3. APL 13-2021.doc

the subject cheque as interim compensation to the respondent No.2. He

submits that the Trial Court has passed the said order, after considering the

merits of the case. He further submitted that the details of the cheque

which was dishonoured has been mentioned in the mutual divorce by way

of Mubarat (by way of Deed of Mutual Divorce) executed between the

applicant and the respondent No.2-wife. He submits that the said deed was

executed in 2019, whereas, the complaint filed by the applicant was in

December, 2018 as against the uncle and the father of respondent No.2; and

that there is no connection between the two.

6.

Perused the papers. On an application filed by the respondent

No.2 for interim compensation under Section 143-A of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, the learned Magistrate directed the applicant to pay 20%

of the subject cheque as interim compensation to the respondent No.2. It is

pertinent to note that the applicant and the respondent No.2 are husband

and wife. A perusal of clause (3) of the mutual divorce by way of Mubarat

(Deed of Mutual Divorce) which is at ‘annexure G’ on page No.44 of the

application shows, that the parties amicably settled their matrimonial

dispute i.e. the parties exchanged their articles, utensils, jewelleries, gold

ornaments and other belongings with each other and that the respondent

No.2 received an amount of Rs.19,50,000/- vide cheque No. 001055, which

Wakodikar

3/4

3. APL 13-2021.doc

includes the ‘Mehr’ amount. The details of the cheque (now dishonoured)

is handwritten and in the margin, both i.e. the applicant as well as

respondent No.2, have put their signatures. It is this cheque, given to the

respondent No.2 pursuant to the mutual divorce by way of Mubara