Bombay High Court
Ravi Rajan Pandayan vs The State Of Maharashtra on 18 February, 2026
Author: Madhav J. Jamdar
Bench: Madhav J. Jamdar
2026:BHC-AS:8641
48-REVN-469-2017.doc
Arjun
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.469 OF 2017
Sudhakar Vasu Shetty ...Applicant
Versus
Ravi Rajan Pandayan & Anr. ...Respondents
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.613 OF 2017
IN
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.469 OF 2017
Sudhakar Vasu Shetty ...Applicant
Versus
Ravi Rajan Pandayan & Anr. ...Respondents
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.626 OF 2017
IN
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.469 OF 2017
Ravi Rajan Pandayan ...Applicant
Versus
Sudhakar Vasu Shetty & Anr. ...Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (STAMP) NO.26552 OF 2025
IN
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.469 OF 2017
Sudhakar Vasu Shetty ...Applicant
Versus
Ravi Rajan Pandayan ...Respondent
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.612 OF 2017
IN
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.469 OF 2017
Sudhakar Vasu Shetty ...Applicant
Versus
Ravi Rajan Pandayan & Anr. ...Respondents
1
::: Uploaded on - 19/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 19/02/2026 20:34:33 :::
48-REVN-469-2017.doc
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.468 OF 2017
Sudhakar Vasu Shetty ...Applicant
Versus
Ravi Rajan Pandayan & Anr. ...Respondents
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.614 OF 2017
IN
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.468 OF 2017
Sudhakar Vasu Shetty ...Applicant
Versus
Ravi Rajan Pandayan & Anr. ...Respondents
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.616 OF 2017
IN
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.468 OF 2017
Sudhakar Vasu Shetty ...Applicant
Versus
Ravi Rajan Pandayan & Anr. ...Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (STAMP) NO.26722 OF 2025
IN
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.468 OF 2017
Sudhakar Vasu Shetty ...Applicant
Versus
Ravi Rajan Pandayan ...Respondent
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.58 OF 2017
Ravi Rajan Pandayan ...Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.59 OF 2017
Ravi Rajan Pandayan ...Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents
2
::: Uploaded on - 19/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 19/02/2026 20:34:33 :::
48-REVN-469-2017.doc
_______________________________________________________________
Mr. Satish Kumbhar, for the Applicant in REVN/468/2017 &
REVN/469/2017 and for the Respondent in REVN/58/2017 &
REVN/59/2017.
Ms. G. P. Mulekar, APP, for the Respondent-State.
Mr. Deepak R. Kushwaha, for Respondent No.1 in REVN/468/2017 &
REVN/469/2017.
_______________________________________________________________
CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATED: 18 FEBRUARY 2026
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Kumbhar, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant
– Sudhakar Vasu Shetty (Accused) and Mr. Kushwaha, learned Counsel
appearing for Respondent No.1 – Ravi Rajan Pandayan (Complainant).
2. The Applicant – Sudhakar Vasu Shetty is the Accused and
Respondent No.1 – Ravi Rajan Pandayan is the Complainant, who has
filed two separate Complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 (“NI Act“).
3. The challenge in Criminal Revision Application No.468 of 2017 is
to the Judgment and Order dated 15th March 2014 passed by the
learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 59th Court, Kurla, Mumbai in Case
No.25508 SS/2009 (Old No.45/MA/09) as well as to the Judgment and
Order dated 18th November 2016 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Criminal Appeal No.356 of 2014.
4. The challenge in Criminal Revision Application No.469 of 2017 is
3
::: Uploaded on – 19/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 19/02/2026 20:34:33 :::
48-REVN-469-2017.docto the Judgment and Order dated 15th March 2014 passed by the
learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 59th Court, Kurla, Mumbai in Case
No.31172/SS/2009 (Old No.44/MA/09) as well as to the Judgment
and Order dated 18th November 2016 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Criminal Appeal No.357 of 2014.
5. Criminal Revision Application No.58 of 2017 and Criminal
Revision Application No.59 of 2017 have been filed by the Complainant
– Ravi Rajan Pandayan, seeking enhancement of sentence.
6. Both, Mr. Kumbhar, learned Counsel for the Applicant – Sudhakar
Vasu Shetty (Accused) and Mr. Kushwaha, learned Counsel for
Respondent No.1 – Ravi Rajan Pandayan (Complainant), state that the
Accused and the Complainant have settled the dispute and tender the
‘Consent Terms’. The said Consent Terms are signed by Accused –
Sudhakar Vasu Shetty and Complainant – Ravi Rajan Pandayan. The
Consent Terms are also signed by the learned Advocate for the Accused
and the learned Advocate for the Complainant. Both of them identify
the signatures of the respective parties. Both, Accused – Sudhakar Vasu
Shetty and Complainant – Ravi Rajan Pandayan are present in Court.
Both of them state that the dispute is settled. As per Section 147 of the
NI Act, the offences under NI Act are compoundable.
7. Accordingly, the Consent Terms are taken on record and marked
“X” for identification. The Consent Terms read as under:
4
::: Uploaded on – 19/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 19/02/2026 20:34:33 :::
48-REVN-469-2017.doc
5
::: Uploaded on – 19/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 19/02/2026 20:34:33 :::
48-REVN-469-2017.doc6
::: Uploaded on – 19/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 19/02/2026 20:34:33 :::
48-REVN-469-2017.doc7
::: Uploaded on – 19/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 19/02/2026 20:34:33 :::
48-REVN-469-2017.doc8
::: Uploaded on – 19/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 19/02/2026 20:34:33 :::
48-REVN-469-2017.doc9
::: Uploaded on – 19/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 19/02/2026 20:34:33 :::
48-REVN-469-2017.doc10
::: Uploaded on – 19/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 19/02/2026 20:34:33 :::
48-REVN-469-2017.doc11
::: Uploaded on – 19/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 19/02/2026 20:34:33 :::
48-REVN-469-2017.doc12
::: Uploaded on – 19/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 19/02/2026 20:34:33 :::
48-REVN-469-2017.doc
8. Various statements made in the Consent Terms are accepted as
undertakings given to this Court.
9. Both the learned Counsel state that the Demand Draft mentioned
in Clause 8(a) of the Consent Terms has already been handed over to
the Complainant – Ravi Rajan Pandayan, and today, in the Court, the
Demand Draft mentioned in Clause 8(b) has been handed over to the
Complainant – Ravi Rajan Pandayan. The Complainant – Ravi Rajan
Pandayan, who is personally present in the Court, confirms the same.
10. Thus, in view of the Consent Terms, the following Order is
passed:
i. Criminal Revision Application No.468 of 2017 is allowed in
terms of prayer clause (a) and accordingly disposed of.
ii. Criminal Revision Application No.469 of 2017 is allowed in
terms of prayer clause (a) and accordingly disposed of.
iii. In view of the above, nothing survives in Criminal Revision
Application No.58 of 2017 and Criminal Revision Application
No.59 of 2017 and the same are also disposed of.
iv. In view of disposal of Criminal Revision Application No.468 of
2017 and Criminal Revision Application No.469 of 2017,
Criminal Applications/Interim Applications filed therein, if any,
stand disposed of.
13
::: Uploaded on – 19/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 19/02/2026 20:34:33 :::
48-REVN-469-2017.doc
v. In view of the Consent Terms and in view of this Order, the
Applicant’s – Sudhakar Vasu Shetty’s Savings Bank Account
No.20147650667, IFSC – SBIN0002271, maintained with the
State Bank of India, Kamothe Branch, Navi Mumbai be
defreezed. The Authorities of the State Bank of India, Kamothe
Branch, Navi Mumbai, shall take immediate steps for defreezing
the said account.
11. Accordingly, all Criminal Revision Applications are disposed of in
above terms.
[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]
14
::: Uploaded on – 19/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 19/02/2026 20:34:33 :::
