Dismissed

Pratod Karnik v. Ceat Financial Services Ltd. and Anr.

Bombay HC1 Sept 2005WP/1757/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court held that the petitioner has an efficacious remedy via revision before the Sessions Court, thus quashing the writ petition. The trial was adjourned pending the revision.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed; liberty granted to prefer revision; trial adjourned.

Pratod Karnik Vs Ceat Financial Services Ltd. and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

-1-

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

 CRIMINAL W.P.NO.1757 OF 2005

¶5

 Mr.Pratod Karnik ..Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

 CEAT Financial Services
 Ltd. & Anr. ..Respondents

¶8

 ...
 Mr.S.S.Bhise Advocate for Petitioner
 Ms.S.V.Gajare A.P.P. for the State

¶9

 CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.
 DATE : SEPT. 1,2005

¶10

P.C.

¶11

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

¶12

 2. The petitioner is seeking quashing of
 proceedings relating to Criminal Case No.
 482/SS/2005 pending before the Metropolitan
 Magistrate, 30th Court, Kurla, Mumbai. In the said
 case, process has been issued against the
 petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable
 Instruments Act. The learned advocate for the

¶13

-2-

¶14

 petitioner submitted that the learned Magistrate
 committed an error in issuing process and the said
 process deserves to be set aside. It is further
 submitted that if the process issued against the
 petitioner is set aside, the proceedings in respect
 of the petitioner, would come to an end.

¶15

 3. For the reasons recorded in my order dated 13th
 June, 2005 in W.P.No. 213 of 2005 and dated 21st
 June, 2005 in Cri.Application No.550 of 2005, I am
 of the opinion that the petitioner has an
 efficacious remedy of preferring revision against
 the order of Magistrate issuing process. Hence, in
 my view, it would be appropriate that the
 petitioner prefers a revision before the concerned
 Sessions Court against the order of the Magistrate
 issuing process.

¶16

 4. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to prefer
 the necessary revision before the concerned
 Sessions Court. The learned advocate for the
 petitioner makes a statement that the necessary
 revision will be preferred within four weeks from
 today. I am informed that the matter before the

¶17

-3-

¶18

 trial Court is kept on 6.9.2005. In this view of
 the matter, the trial Court shall not proceed with
 the trial on 6.9.2005 and for a further period of

¶19

 three weeks thereafter.

¶20

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

¶21

6. Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶22

7. Authenticated copy be issued to the parties.

¶23

 [V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]

Pratod Karnik v. Ceat Financial Services Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pratod Karnik v. Ceat Financial Services Ltd. and Anr.

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

Vishnupath Dhondugade Vs the State of Maharashtra

Krishna Ram Jaikishan Vishnoi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

M/S. Ansh Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bhagchand B. Agarwal and Anr.

Vakil Ramzan Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Urison Exports Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs Shikhar Trading Ltd.and Ors.

Abubakar Sow Vs P.V. Nayak and Anr.