Partly allowed

M/S. Arihant Apparels and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Sept 2005WP/1529/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the petitioners' prayer to quash proceedings under Section 138 NI Act and the N.B.W., directing them to prefer revision in the Sessions Court. A stay of trial was granted, and the N.B.W. stayed for six weeks to allow setting aside before the Magistrate.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed; revision directed to be preferred by 20.10.2005; N.B.W. stayed for six weeks; trial stayed for two weeks.

M/S. Arihant Apparels and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

 (-1-)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1529 OF 2005

¶5

 Sri Arihant Apparels & Ors ...Petitioners

¶6

 Versus

¶7

 State of Maharashtra & Ors ...Respondents

¶8

 Mr. Gautam Panehal i/b Minesh K.Shah, Advocate for
 Petitioners

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

DATED: 13TH SEPTEMBER, 2005

¶12

P. C.:-

¶13

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

¶14

 2. The petitioners have prayed for quashing of

¶15

 proceedings relating to Criminal Case No.
 269/SS/2004 which is pending in the Court of learned
 Metropolitan Magistrate, 27th Court, Mulund, Mumbai.
 In the said case, process has been issued against the

¶16

 petitioners under Section 138 of Negotiable
 Instruments Act. The learned advocate for the
 petitioners submitted that the learned Magistrate
 committed an error in issuing process and the said
 process deserves to be set aside. It is further

¶17

 (-2-)

¶18

 submitted that if the process issued against the
 petitioners is set aside, the proceedings in respect
 of the petitioners would come to an end.

¶19

 3. 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, in my opinion,
 the petitioners have an efficacious remedy of
 preferring revision against the order of Magistrate
 issuing process. Hence, in my opinion, it would be
 appropriate that the petitioners prefer revision
 before the concerned Sessions Court against the order
 of the Magistrate issuing process.

¶20

 4. Liberty is granted to the petitioners to prefer
 revision before the concerned Sessions Court. The
 learned advocate for the petitioners states that the
 necessary revision would be preferred by 20.10.2005.
 It is stated on behalf of the petitioners that the
 next date in the matter before the trial Court is on
 11.10.2005. In view of this statement, the trial
 Court shall not proceed with the case on 11.10.2005
 and for a period of two weeks thereafter.

¶21

 5. It is also prayed that by order dated 26.8.2005,
 the learned Magistrate has issued non bailable
 warrant against the petitioners and the said N.B.W.

¶22

 (-3-)

¶23

 be quashed. I am not inclined to quash the N.B.W.

¶24

 as in my view, it would be appropriate that the
 petitioners prefer an application before the
 Magistrate for setting aside the said N.B.W. In
 order to enable the petitioners to take necessary
 steps for setting aside the N.B.W. before the
 Magistrate, the said N.B.W. are stayed for a period
 of six weeks from today.

¶25

 6. 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.

¶26

 7. Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of the

¶27

 above order.

¶28

 *****

M/S. Arihant Apparels and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Arihant Apparels and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Maharashtra Vs Ravindra Mahadeo Dhadake

Marappa @ Gurusidha Bhimrao Padavale Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Ravindra Mahadeo Dhadake

Rohini Pratap Sampat Vs M/S Therapeutic Pharmaceuticals and Ors.

Suresh Narsappa Talwar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

M/S. Star India Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.