1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1240 OF 2006 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2006 Smt. Premlata Saxena ...... Applicant. V/s M/s Rajyog Developers & Ors. ...... Respondents. ----- Mr. R.N. Sanshavi for the applicant. Mr. J.S. Kini i/b Mr. Suresh Dubey for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. S.S. Pednekar, APP for the State. ----- ALONGWITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1241 OF 2006 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2006 ALONGWITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1242 OF 2006 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. OF 2006 Surendra Prakash Saxena ...... Applicant. V/s M/s. Rajyog Developers & Others ....... Respondents. ----- Mr. R.N. Sanshavi for the applicant. Mr. J.S. Kini i/b Mr. Suresh Dubey for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. S.S. Pednekar, APP for the State. ------- CORAM: V.M. KANADE, J. 2 DATE : 2nd December, 2008 P.C.: 1. These criminal applications for leave to file appeal can be conveniently disposed of by this common order as the facts in all these applications are identical. For the purpose of convenience, while passing this common order, facts in Criminal Application No.1240 of 2006 are referred to. 2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 3. Applicant is challenging the judgment and order passed by the the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pune in Criminal Case No.2066 of 2004 whereby the learned Magistrate was pleased to dismiss the complaint filed by the applicant herein and acquit the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 - accused for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 4. The complainant's husband had purchased a plot of land in their joint name by registered sale deed dated 9/9/1986. The said plot was entrusted respondent Nos. 1 to 3 - accused for the purpose of development under Development Agreement dated 16/08/2003. A power of attorney was also executed in favour of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 - accused and both the documents were registered with Sub-Registrar, Haveli. Under 3 the said agreement, it was agreed that the accused would pay a sum of Rs 9 lacs @ Rs 150/- per sq.ft. to the complainant, her husband and sister-in-law and post-dated cheques were issued in their names. The first five cheques were honoured. However, for the subsequent cheques, stop payment instructions were given by the accused and, therefore, the subsequent cheque dated 16/09/2003 for Rs 1,50,000/- which was deposited by the complainant was dishonoured. Demand Notice was issued by the complainant and it was duly served on the accused and, thereafter, complaint was filed in the court. 5. During the trial, the accused had taken a specific defence that the complainant was under an obligation to remove encumbrances, pay nazarana amount and also remove the entry in 7 x 12 Extract under section 84-C of the Land Revenue Code. It was, therefore, contended by the accused that they were justified in issuing stop payment instructions to the Bank. 6. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant submitted that the Trial Court had erred in recording a finding that the complainant was under an obligation to remove entry which was made in 7 x 12 Extract under section 84-C of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. He submitted that, under the Development Agreement, all expenses were to be incurred by the accused and, therefore, the accused were under an obligation to pay N.A. Taxes and obtain an order for non- agricultural assessment. He invited my attention to the judgment and order passed by the learned Magistrate as also the notes of 4 evidence which are annexed to the application for leave to file an appeal. 7. It is not possible to accept the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant. From the perusal of Development Agreement which is annexed to the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3, it is apparent that the complainant was under a legal obligation to remove the encumbrances and also remove the entry which was made under section 84-C of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The Trial Court, therefore, was justified in recording the finding to that effect. In the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3, it is stated that the applicant has also filed a civil suit on the dishonour of the said cheque and, in the said suit, respondents have deposited entire amount of the dishonoured cheque. This fact is not denied by the complainant in the affidavit-in-rejoinder that is filed by her. The Trial Court, therefore, was justified in accepting the defence of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 8. In my view, there is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Trial Court. The view taken by the Trial Court is a plausible view and no case is made out to interfere with the said finding recorded by the Trial Court. Leave, therefore, is refused. 9. At this stage, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant submits that it may be clarified that the Civil Court should not be influenced by the finding recorded by this 5 Court in these applications for leave to file appeal. Needless to state that the Civil Court shall not be influenced by any observation made by this Court while deciding these criminal applications for leave to file appeal. 10. Applications are disposed of. Appeals do not survive. (V.M. KANADE, J.)