Quashed

Divakar Jayram Shetty v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC21 Dec 2004WP/2002/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal writ petition examined whether a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act establishes a case against a non-signatory accused. The court held that without allegation of complicity under Section 141, the complaint fails to make out a case against the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The complaint is quashed insofar as the Petitioner/accused No.2 is concerned.

Divakar Jayram Shetty Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2004)

¶1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NOS.2002, 2003, 2004

¶4

 and 2005 all OF 2004

¶5

 Divakar Jayram Shetty ...Petitioner

¶6

 Versus

¶7

 The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents

¶8

 Mr.P.N.Patil for Petitioner in all the matters.

¶9

 Mr.S.R.Shinde, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1

¶10

 in all the matters.

¶11

CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.

¶12

 DECEMBER 21, 2004.

¶13

P.C.

¶14

 1. Heard Mr.Patil for Petitioner and

¶15

 Mr.Shinde, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1. None

¶16

 appears for Respondent No.2. Affidavit of service

¶17

 has been filed, which mentions that notice sent to
 Respondent No.2 has been refused. That is good
 service. In the circumstances, the matter will

¶18

 have to proceed in terms of order dated 14th
 October 2004.

¶19

 : 2 :

¶20

 2. The limited question that arises in the
 present Petitions is: whether the complaint as
 filed makes out any case against the Petitioner?
 The allegation in the complaint is that the
 Petitioner/accused No.2 along with accused Nos.1
 and 3 started Approach Multi Trade Pvt.Ltd. and
 they were conducting business on behalf of the said
 Company. It is not in dispute as is seen from the
 complaint that accused No.1 is the signatory to the
 cheque in question. In other words, Petitioner is
 not the signatory to the cheque. There is no
 allegation in the complaint so as to indicate the
 complicity of the Petitioner as is required by
 Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
 Recently, I had occasion to deal with this aspect
in Criminal Writ Petition No.2241 of 2004 -
Madanlal Taparia & Anr. vs. The Bank of Rajasthan
Ltd. & Anr. decided on 14th December 2004.

¶21

 3. Accordingly the Petitions succeed in terms
 of prayer clause (a). The complaint in question is
 quashed, insofar as Petitioner/accused No.2 is
 concerned.

¶22

 : 3 :

¶23

 A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.

Divakar Jayram Shetty v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Divakar Jayram Shetty v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vivekananda Gurappa Desai Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

M/S Paras Clearing and Forwarding Agencies Pvt.Ltd. and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Krishnan Shivcharan Agarwal and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ajay Vijay Alhad and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

K.V. Adhone Garments Vs J.S. Gaud and Anr.

Shri Shankar Appa Barkul . Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. .