Dismissed

Karishma Vishal Khanna v. Sdv Air Link India Ltd. and Anr.

Bombay HC15 Dec 2008APPLN/508/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Application sought quashing of an order of the Metropolitan Magistrate issuing process under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court held that the applicant has an efficacious remedy of preferring revision and directed the applicant to prefer the revision before the Sessions Court.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the applicant to prefer revision before the Sessions Court; trial stayed for five weeks; criminal application disposed of.

Karishma Vishal Khanna Vs Sdv Air Link India Ltd. and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

 ..(1)..

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.508 OF 2008

¶4

 Mrs.Karishma Vishal Khanna. ..Applicant.
 Versus
 SDV Air Link India Ltd.
 and Anr. ..Respondents.

¶5

 Mr.Kedar G. Prabhu, Adv. for the applicant.
 Mr.Y.M.Nakhwa, APP, for the State.

¶6

CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.
DATED : 15th December, 2008.
 P.C.:

¶7

 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the applicant -

¶8

 orig.accused No.3 and the learned A.P.P. for the
 State.

¶9

 2. The applicant is facing prosecution in Case
 No.2370/SS/2005 which is pending before the learned
 Metropolitan Magistrate, 44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
 In the said case, by order dated 8th December, 2005
 the learned Magistrate issued process under Section
 138 read with 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
 Being aggrieved thereby, this application has been
 preferred for quashing of an order of the learned
 Magistrate issuing process against the applicant.

¶10

 3. For the reasons recorded in the order passed by
 this Court in the case of V.K.Jain Vs. P.V.Padode;
2005(3) Mh.L.J.778, which has been upheld by the

¶11

 ..(2)..

¶12

 Hon’ble Apex Court I am of the opinion that the
 applicant has an efficacious remedy of preferring
 revision against the order of Magistrate issuing
 process. Hence, in my view, it would be appropriate
 that the applicant prefers a revision before the
 concerned Sessions Court against the order of the
 Magistrate issuing process.

¶13

 4. Liberty is granted to the applicant to prefer the
 necessary revision before the concerned Sessions
 Court. The learned Advocate for the applicant makes
 a statement that the necessary revision will be
 preferred within five weeks from today. In view of
 this statement, the trial Court shall not proceed
 with the trial for a period of five weeks.

¶14

 5. If the revision is preferred within five weeks,
 delay, if any, in preferring the revision be
 condoned. On the necessary revision being preferred
 by the applicant before the concerned Sessions Court,
 the concerned Sessions Court shall dispose of the
 matter on merits.

¶15

 6. Criminal Application is disposed of accordingly.

¶16

 ..(3)..

¶17

 [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]

Karishma Vishal Khanna v. Sdv Air Link India Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karishma Vishal Khanna v. Sdv Air Link India Ltd. 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

Brijesh Mathuradas Dattani . Vs the State of Maharashtra .

Najmoon Nisamjamil Ahemed Shaikh and Ors. Vs Shabana Nazir Shaikh and Anr.

Daulat Ramrao Phadtare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Virkar Engineers and Developers through v.N.Virkar Vs Nav Vasant Vihar Sahakari Gruhanirman Sanstha andANR

Sushila Shantilal Jadav and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ambadas Maruti Kaulge Vs Kisan Tukaram Bhargude and Anr.