Dismissed

Prem Prakash Verma v. M/S. Shree Ramanuj Finance Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Bombay HC13 Aug 2007WP/1238/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court rejected a second writ petition filed under Article 227 read with Section 482 CrPC for quashing cheque bouncing proceedings. The court held there was no fresh cause of action following a prior rejection and that the constitutional issue of enforceable liability needed determination on evidence during the trial which had commenced.

What did the court decide?

The petition seeking quashing of proceedings is rejected. The trial of the complaint is to be expedited.

Prem Prakash Verma Vs M/S. Shree Ramanuj Finance Pvt. Ltd… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

Criminal Writ Petition No.1238 of 2007

Prem Prakash Verma

Petitioner

Vs.

M/s. Shree Ramanuj Finance Pvt.Ltd. and ors.

¶8

Respondents

¶9

Mr.Narulla with Mr.Narendra Singh i/b. Mr.Kunal Cheema for petitioner.

¶10

Mr.S.V.Marwadi for resp.no.1.

¶11

Mr.P.A.Pol, APP for State.

¶12

CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.

¶13

August 13, 2007.

¶14

P.C.

¶15

.		Heard	the lear	ned cou	nsel for the	petitioner.
In	this	petitio	n	filed	under	Article 227 of the
Constit	ution	read		with	Section	482 of Cr.P.C., the
petition	er is	pra	ying	for	quash	ing of the proceedings
in	Criminal		Case		No.160/S/	2002 presently pending
before	the learned	Addl.	Chief	Metrop	olitan
Magistr	ate, 43rd Cour	t, Bori	vali.

¶16

. The petitioner has been impleaded as an accused in Criminal Case No.160/S/2002 for the

¶17

¶18

offence punishab	le	under	Section 138 of	the
Negotiable Instru	ments		Act, 1881. Initially	the
complaint was	filed	in	the year 1999 and the	process
was issued.	The	ap	plicant approached the trial	Court
and filed an		applic	ation to recall the order	of
process. This		applic	ation was presented on	17th
August 1999	and	it	was rejected on 29/7/2003.	The
said order	was	car	ried in Criminal	Revision
Application No.	640	of	2003 and the	revision
application was	r	ejected	on 3rd March 2004 by	the
learned Addl.		Sessi	ons Judge for Greater	Mumbai.
The petitioner	then	app	roached this Court in	Criminal
Writ Petition	No.13	46 o	f 2004 which was rejected	by
this Court	on	13th	September 2005 holding that	in
view of the	law	laid	down by the Apex Court in	the
case of Ad	alat	Prasa	d, the application for reca	ll of
the process	was	no	t maintainable before the	trial
Court. At	the	same	time this Court observed	that

¶19

rejection of the petitioner would not preclude the

¶20

petitioner from taking out appropriate proceedings.

¶21

.		Almost two	years late	r i.e. on	10th Jul	y 2007
this	fresh	petition	has	been	filed	and	for	the	same
relief	as	was	prayed	in	Writ	Petitio	n	No.1346	of
2004.	The	obser	vation	of	t	his	Court	that	the

¶22

¶23

rejection of Writ Petition No.1346 of 2004 would not preclude the petitioner from taking out appropriate

¶24

proceedings certainly did not include re-approaching

¶25

this Court on the same issue.

¶26

Be that as it may, the grounds reagitated in

¶27

. this petition are on the same lines viz. there was no legally enforceable liability in discharge of which the cheques were presented and dishonoured more so because the shares which were put in possession of the complainant have been transferred and the value of the shares is over Rs.55 lakhs as compared to the liability of Rs.15 lakhs + Rs.7 lakhs with interest. Mr.Marwadi, the learned counsel for the original

¶28

complainant on the other hand stated that the charge

¶29

has been framed and the trial has already commenced.

¶30

. The statutory notice issued to the petitioner

¶31

was	replied to on	24/7	/1999 by	the	lear	ned	Advocate
for	the petitioner	and	the only	defe	nce	taken	was
that	there was	a	specific	understa	nding	that	the
subject	cheques	would	not	be		deposited	for
encashment	. The	defe	nce that	there	was	no	legally
enforceable	liability was	no	t spoken	ab	out	nor	was it
the	case of the	petition	er that	the	loan	amount	was

¶32

¶33

already	discharged	on	acco	unt	of	transfer of	shares.
The	learned co	unsel	for	the	petiti	oner referred	to
the	letters dated	16/5	/2002		and	18/5/2002	and

¶34

submitted that the petitioner had no knowledge of

¶35

transfer of shares.

¶36

. There is no fresh cause of action to approach

¶37

this	Court in	the	second	round after Criminal	Writ
Petition	No.1346	of	2004	was rejected on	13/9/2005
and	the only	develo	pment	that is reported durin	g the
intervening	period	is	that	the trial has co	mmenced.
Whether	the che	ques	were	sought to be	encashed
against	a legall	y enf	orceable	liability or not is	a
matter	which n	eeds t	o be	gone into by the	evidence
the	parties may	le	ad bef	ore the trial Court	and
certainly	the	accused	will	be at liberty to	adduce
such	evidence to	show	(a)	that the cheques were	not
to	be encashed,	(b)	that	the loan amount was	already
discharged	by	transfer	of	shares and (c)	the
agreement	dated	13/6/1	996	had built-in measures	and
if	the cheques	were	disho	noured the complainant	was
at libe	rty to t	ransfer	the	shares and appropriate	the
amount	as stated	in	the s	aid agreement. There	is no

¶38

case made out as of now to quash the proceedings

¶39

pending before the learned Magistrate.

¶40

¶41

. Hence the petition is rejected. Trial of the

¶42

complaint is expedited.

Prem Prakash Verma v. M/S. Shree Ramanuj Finance Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Prakash Verma v. M/S. Shree Ramanuj Finance Pvt. 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

Narendra Ketshi HUF and Ors. Vs Rekha Bipin Gogari and Anr.

Vijay Rochlani Vs Shaila Kartha and Ors.

Bayama Construction Vs M/S. Krystal Stone Exports Ltd. and Ors.

Indage (India) Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Manish Lal Bhadur Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Amrut Babubhai Patel Vs the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Anr.