1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.55 OF 2009 Ms.Heena Umesh Mehta .... Petitioner Vs. M/s Blue Star Enterprises & Ors..... Respondents Mr.A.M. Saraogi Advocate for petitioner. Mr.S.V. Marwadi, i/by Sunita Sharma for respondent no.1. Mr.A.S. Shitole, APP for State. Coram : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. Date : 18th September, 2009 P.C. 1. This Writ Petition arises out of the proceedings filed by the complainant under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. By the order dated 26th January 2006, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate convicted respondent no.2 and sentenced him only with fine of Rs. 500/-. Since the respondents had already deposited a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- in the Court being the amount under the cheque, the petitioner was permitted to withdraw that amount. The petitioner then filed Criminal Revision Application No.618 of 2006 for enhancement of compensation. The revisional court found that payment of Rs.5,00,000/-, the amount covered by the cheque would not be adequate compensation and as such roughly calculating the interest on the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for a period of nine months, directed payment of additional amount of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and also Rs.10,000/- towards costs. 2 2. Not being satisfied with the enhancement granted by the Sessions Court, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.225 of 2008. That petition was dismissed by the order dated 7th February 2008 holding that the enhancement awarded by the Sessions Court was fair and reasonable and there was no need to interfere with the order. It appears that at the time of hearing of that Writ Petition, the petitioner had made grievance that “the impugned order goes to make some incorrect observations about factual position regarding civil litigation”. In that circumstance, the petitioner was permitted to approach the same Court for redressal of his grievance. 3. The Petitioner therefore filed Miscellaneous Application in the Criminal Revision Application No.618 of 2006 which was disposed off by the order dated 12th August 2008 impugned in this petition. In that application, he quoted portions of paragraphs No.2,5,6,8 and 9 of the judgment of the trial Court, which according to him were objectionable. The said portions read as follows : Para-2 “Initially Jayshree Shah was employed with the accused. Thereafter accused accepted her as partner of his firm M/s Bluestar Corporation. While accused was in need of finance, Jayshree Shah helped him through her sister Heena Mehta. Heena Mehta advanced loan of Rs. 5,00,000/”. 3 Para-5 “A suggestion was put by the defence that payment of Rs. 3,50,000/- was made to the complainant and only balance of Rs.1,50,000/- was to be paid. But because of the Arbitration proceedings pending in the Hon’ble High Court between Jayshree Shah and the accused, no settlement is arrived in the present matter”. Para-6 “Looking to the facts of the present case, there appears some dispute between Jayshree Shah and the accused, bit the accused but the cheque issued in favour of the complainant Heena Mehta is a different issue.” Para-8 “It is submitted that because of the civil dispute regarding settlement of partnership accounts between Jayshree Shah and the accused this case is lingering.” Para-9 “It appears that a civil dispute is pending between Jayshree Shah and the accused and it is admitted fact that technically offence is committed by the accused, even though later on he has deposited the cheque amount in the court. It is sufficient amount to compensate the complainant. Hence, there is no need to punish the accused severally.” Mr.Saraogi, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the observations made in these paragraphs would affect the civil litigation between the parties. 4. As has been rightly pointed out by Mr.Marwadi, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1, the liberty granted to the petitioner was limited to the correction of factually incorrect statements in the order. Mr.Saraogi has not been able to point out any factually incorrect statement in the portions quoted 4 above. Further in the present petition, there is no averment as regards the prejudice that has been caused to the petitioner. Perusal of the portions shows that paragraph 2 refers to the case of the complainant which admittedly is correct. The portion of paragraph 5 refers to the suggestion put by the defence and the portions of paragraphs 6,8 and 9 quoted above are the observations of the learned Magistrate. The Sessions Judge has in the impugned order rightly held that the observations were made while passing the order on the strength of evidence recorded in the matter. In that circumstance, I find no error or illegality with the order rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for removing portions quoted above from the order. 5. Part of prayer (a) relates to further enhancement of compensation to the petitioner. Mr. Saraogi states that he is not pressing for the relief in those terms. The Writ Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. (SMT.R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J)