Bombay High Court
Nrc Limited And Others vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 31 August, 2017
Author: P.N. Deshmukh
Bench: P.N. Deshmukh
1 wp186.12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.186 OF 2012
1) NRC LIMITED, a Company duly registered
under the Companies Act, having its
Registered & Corporate Office at
Ewart House, Homi Modi Street,
Fort, Mumbai - 400 001.
2) G.P. Goenka, Chairman of petitioner
no.1 Company having his address at
Devanaman White House Gardens,
17D, Alipore Road, Kolkata-700 027.
3) Ashok Goenka, Director of petitioner
no.1 Company having his address at
H-1539, Chittaranjan Park,
New Delhi - 110 019.
4) P.K. Mallik, Director of petitioner
no.1 Company having his address
at 14/140, Golf Club, Tolly Gunj,
Kolkatta - 700 003.
5) R.S. Agarwal, Director of petitioner
no.1 Company having his address
at A-102, Chaitanya Towers,
Appasaheb Marathe Marg, near
Karyrvysya Bank, Prabhadevi,
Mumbai - 400 025.
6) Arun Jain, Director of petitioner
no.1 Company, having his address
at Flat No.2702, 27th Floor, Zahra
Towers CHS Ltd., Worli,
Mumbai - 400 018.
7) M.C. Nalwaya, Chief Financial
Officer of petitioner no.1 Company,
::: Uploaded on - 06/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2017 01:31:14 :::
2 wp186.12
having his address at Ewart
House, Homi Modi Street,
Fort, Mumbai - 400 001.
8) Shyam Sharma, General Manager
(Materials), NRC Ltd., having
his address at Ewart House,
Homi Modi Street, Fort,
Mumbai - 400 001.
9) Ashish Pandey, Company Secretary
and DGM (Finance) NRC Ltd.,
having his address at Ewart House,
Homi Modi Street, Fort, Mumbai -
400 001.
(Petitioner nos. 1 to 3 original
accused nos.1 to 3 - Petitioner
Nos. 4 to 9 original accused
Nos. 5 to 10). ... Petitioners
- Versus -
1) State of Maharashtra
2) M/s Fuel Corporation of India,
a partnership firm having its office
at Fulwanti Palace, 926/A,
Deshpande Layout, Central
Avenue, Nagpur.
3) Kamal Kishore Agarwal,
s/o Ganpat Ll Agarwal, partner of
respondent no.2 firm.
4) Smt. Chayya w/o Jugalkishore
Agarwal, partner of respondent no.2
firm,
Respondent nos.3 and 4 both having
address at Fulwanti Palace,
926/A, Deshpande Layout,
Central Avenue, Nagpur.
(Respondent Nos.2 to 4 - original
complainant Nos. 1 to 3) ... Respondents
-----------------
::: Uploaded on - 06/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2017 01:31:14 :::
3 wp186.12
Shri R.M. Patwardhan, Advocate for petitioners.
Shri S. Sirpurkar, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent no.1.
Shri V.V. Bhangade, Advocate for respondent nos.2 to 4.
----------------
CORAM : P.N. DESHMUKH, J.
DATED : AUGUST 31, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of Shri Patwardhan, learned Counsel for petitioners, Shri Sirpurkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent no.1, and Shri Bhangde, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 4.
2) Challenge in this petition is to order of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur issuing process against petitioners under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in Criminal Case No.3866/2011 filed by respondent nos.2 to 4.
3) During the course of hearing, Shri Patwardhan, learned Counsel for petitioners, has referred to original complaint in the record and proceedings, which are made available before this Court in the above numbered criminal case and pointed out that though on the complaint, order is passed : "Heard complainant. Perused documents. It appears that complainant has made out a prima facie case. Hence, issue process ::: Uploaded on - 06/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2017 01:31:14 ::: 4 wp186.12 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against accused nos.1 to 10", same does not bear signature of learned Magistrate passing such order.
4) Perusal of aforesaid order on the first page of complaint substantiates submissions made as aforesaid as it appears that learned Magistrate though passed such handwritten order, has not signed the same.
5) Admittedly, process is issued against petitioners, who are original accused nos.1 to 10 before learned trial Court based on above unsigned order, which order on the face of it needs to be quashed and set aside with liberty in favour of complainants to make necessary submissions before learned trial Court and to make out a case for issuance of process afresh.
6) In the circumstances, petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 4/3/2011 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class in Criminal Case No.3866/2011 is quashed and set aside. Learned trial Court to re-consider issuance of process against petitioners. Complainants to appear before learned trial Court on 25/9/2017.
Record and proceedings be sent back to learned trial Court forthwith.
::: Uploaded on - 06/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2017 01:31:14 :::
5 wp186.12
7) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.
JUDGE khj ::: Uploaded on - 06/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2017 01:31:14 :::