Bombay High Court
Sangeet Maheshwari And Ors vs Ravi Motilal Maheshwar And Anr on 14 October, 2019
Author: A.M.Badar
Bench: A.M.Badar
(7)WPNo.40842019.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.4084 2019
Sangeet Mahaeshwari & Ors. ... Petitioners
Versus
Ravi Motilal Maheshwar & Anr. ... Respondents
.....
Mr.R.B.Mokashi with Mr.Aditya R. Mokashi, Advocate for the
Petitioners.
Mr.A.R.Kapadnis, APP for the Respondent/State.
....
CORAM : A.M.BADAR J.
DATED : 14th OCTOBER 2019.
P.C. :
1 By this petition, the petitioner, who happens to be
accused in a Complaint Case No.961/SS/2018 pending on the file
of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 7th Court, Bhoiwada
Dadar, Mumbai is impugning the revisional Order rejecting
challenge of the petitioners to the Order directing issuance of
process against them in the complaint for the offence punishable
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
initiated by respondent No.1
2 Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner.
He drew my attention to the Order dated 20/10/2018 passed by
Gaikwad RD 1/3
::: Uploaded on - 14/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/10/2019 02:27:39 :::
(7)WPNo.40842019.odt
the learned Magistrate, 7th Court, Bhoiwada, Dadar Mumbai
directing issuance of process and submitted that this Order
virtually is cyclostyle Order and therefore, reflects non-application
of mind by the learned Magistrate. The learned Counsel further
drew my attention to Exhibit E (page 34 of the paper book) and
pointed out that the cheque in question was non-CTS cheque and
validity thereof was up to 31st July and as per Notification of the
Reserve Bank of India. Therefore, the same was not the valid
negotiable instrument and, as such, the complaint, as framed and
filed, was not maintainable.
3 In submission of the learned Counsel for the
petitioners, the cheque was even otherwise ought to have
dishounoured by the Bank.
4 I have considered the submissions so advanced.
5 It is alleged by the respondent No.1 in his complaint
for the offence punishable under Section 138 read with Section
134 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 that cheque bearing
No.585468 dated 11/12/2017 was issued for a valuable
consideration in discharge of debt and liability amounting to
Rs.14,25,000/-. It is pleaded in the complaint that the statutory
notice was duly issued and was served on the accused after
dishonour of the said cheque with remark "refer to drawer" by the
bank.
Gaikwad RD 2/3
::: Uploaded on - 14/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/10/2019 02:27:39 :::
(7)WPNo.40842019.odt
6 It is further seen that verification in the form of
affidavit came to be field by the complainant on 20th October 2018
and thereafter, the Order directing issuance of process came to be
passed. It appears that the print of the copy of the said Order was
taken from the computer and some dates are filled in that Order.
7 It is seen from the record of the complaint that the
complainant had made out sufficient ground to proceed against
the accused persons. At the stage of issuance of process
meticulous examination of the documents and weighing merits of
the defence is not warranted. Whatever is argued before this
Court can constitute defence before the learned trial Magistrate.
However, perusal of the complaint as well as verification statement
on affidavit goes to show that sufficient grounds to proceed
against the accused are certainly made out and, therefore, no case
for interference is made out. As such, the Order :
ORDER
The Petition is dismissed.
(A.M.BADAR, J.) Gaikwad RD 3/3 ::: Uploaded on - 14/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/10/2019 02:27:39 :::