In a money laundering case, the High Court held no case is made out for quashing section 138 NI Act complaint at present as partnership status and cheque misutilisation are questions to be decided on evidence.
Application dismissed and contentions of applicant kept open.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1258 OF 2005
Anil Krishna Zunzurwad...Applicant
vs.
Mrs.Smita Vijay Shah & Others...Respondents
Mr.R.R.Bhonsale for the applicant
Mr.Prashant Hagare i/b Dipale Girme for respondent No.1
Mr.J.P.Yagnik A.P.P. for State
CORAM: A.S.OKA,J.
DATE : AUGUST 12,2008
P.C.:
1. Heard the learned counsel for the Applicant. The
applicant has been arraigned as one of the accused in a
complaint filed by the first Respondent under section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881. Process was issued
against the Applicant. According to the averments made in the
complaint, the cheques on the basis of which the complaint was
filed were signed by the Applicant in his capacity as a
partner of accused No.1. The process was issued in the
complaint. An application for recall of the process was filed
by the Applicant which came to be rejected. A revision
application was filed for challenging the said order which has
been dismissed.
2. The main contention raised in the application is that the
Applicant had no contractual relationship with the first
- 2 -
Respondent. It is contended that the accused no.1-firm is not
a partnership firm but is a proprietary concern of the third
Respondent. A contention is raised that the blank cheques
were issued by the Applicant in favour of a third party
M/s.Siosa Enterprises and the said blank cheques have been
misused by the first Respondent.
3. I have carefully considered the submissions. Perusal of
the averments made in the complaint show that necessary
ingredient of section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument
Act,1881 are made out. Whether the accused no.1 is a firm or
a proprietary concern and whether the cheques issued by the
Applicant in favour of the third party M/s.Siosa Enterprises
have been misused by the first Respondent are the questions to
be decided on evidence. Considering the averments made in the
complaint, at this stage, no case is made out for quashing the
complaint. However, all contentions raised by the Applicant
in this application are expressly kept open.
4. Subject to what is observed above, application is
JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Amendment/partnership status of first respondent firm or if it is proprietary concern of third respondent and misutilisation of blank cheque
Whether all ingredients of section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 are made out
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Anil Krishna Zunzurwad
Mrs.Smita Vijay Shah
A.S.Oka
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court