Disposed

Poonam Sanjay Agarwal v. Aggarwal Corporation and Anr.

Bombay HC28 Jun 2005APPLN/157/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Applications regarding proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Single Judge held that the applicant possesses an efficacious remedy via revision. Liberty was granted to prefer revision before the Sessions Court, and the trial was stayed for three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to prefer revision before the Sessions Court. Trial stayed for three weeks.

Poonam Sanjay Agarwal Vs Aggarwal Corporation and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

 (-1-)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 157 OF 2005
 ALONGWITH
 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 158 OF 2005
 ALONGWITH
 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 159 OF 2005
 ALONGWITH
 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 160 OF 2005

¶5

 Mrs. Poonam Sanjay Agarwal ...Applicant

¶6

 Versus

¶7

 M/s. Agarwal Corporation & Anr ...Respondents

¶8

 Mr. M.S. Mohite, Advocate for Applicant.

¶9

 Mr. Y.S. Shinde, A.P.P. for State.

¶10

CORAM:SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.

¶11

DATED: 28TH JUNE, 2005

¶12

P. C.:-

¶13

 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicant and
 the learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶14

 2. The applicant has prayed for quashing of process
 issued against her in Criminal Case Nos. 1524/S/2003
 (CC No.247/S/2002), 1523/S/2003 (CC No. 246/S/2002),
 1522/S/2003 (CC No. 245/S/2002) and 1521/S/2003 (CC.
 No. 244/S/2002) which are pending in the Court of
 learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
 40th Court, Girgaon, Mumbai. In the said case,

¶15

 (-2-)

¶16

 process has been issued against the applicant under

¶17

 Section 138 r.w. 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶18

 3. It may be stated here that the applicant had
 earlier preferred an application before the learned
 Magistrate for recalling of process. The said
 application came to be rejected. Being aggrieved by
 the order of the learned Magistrate, the applicant
 preferred revision before the Sessions Court. The
 Sessions Court observed that in view of the judgment
 of the Apex Court in the case of Adalat Prasad Vs.

¶19

Rooplal Jindal & Ors. 2004 (4) Mh.L.J. 274 and
Subramanium Sethuraman Vs. State of Maharashtra &
Anr. 2005 (1) Mh.L.J. 626, the order of the
 Magistrate does not suffer from any irregularity and
 on this ground the revision came to be dismissed. In
 view of these two decisions, no fault can be found
 with the order of the learned Sessions Judge
 rejecting the revision preferred against the order of
 the Magistrate rejecting the application for recall
 of process.

¶20

 3. However, For the reasons recorded in my order
 dated 13th June, 2005 passed in Criminal Writ
 Petition No.213 of 2005 and order dated 21st June,
 2005 passed in Criminal Application No.550 of 2005,
 the applicant has an efficacious remedy of preferring
 revision against the order of Magistrate issuing

¶21

 (-3-)

¶22

 process. Hence, in my view, it would be appropriate
 that the applicant prefers revision before the
 concerned Sessions Court against the order of the
 Magistrate issuing process.

¶23

 4. Liberty is granted to the applicant to prefer
 revision before the concerned Sessions Court. It is
 made clear that the revision shall be preferred in
 respect of the order of the Magistrate issuing
 process against the applicant and not in respect of
 order of the Magistrate rejecting the application of
 the applicant for recalling of process. The trial
 Court shall not proceed with the trial for a period
 of three weeks from today.

¶24

 5. On the necessary revision being preferred by the
 petitioners before the concerned Sessions Court, the
 concerned Sessions Court shall dispose of the same on
 merits after hearing necessary parties.

¶25

 6. Office to issue an authenticated copy of this
 order to the parties.

¶26

 7. Criminal Applications are disposed of.

¶27

 *****

Poonam Sanjay Agarwal v. Aggarwal Corporation and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Poonam Sanjay Agarwal v. Aggarwal Corporation 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

Anilkumar Laxmanrao Alkunthe and Ors. Vs Amarnath Laxmanrao Alkunthe and Anr.

Roshanlal Jagannath Soni Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sundeep Ploymers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs M/S. K.M. Enterprises and Anr.

Mukund Govind Kulkarni Vs Gajanan Shankar Pakale and Anr.

Poonam Sanjay Agarwal Vs M/S. Aggarwal Corporation and Anr.

Mukund Govind Kulkarni Vs Gajanan Shankar Pakale and Anr.