Dismissed

Manohar Dwarkadas Rohra v. M/S Videocon Industries Ltd. and Anr.

Bombay HC8 Sept 2010APPLN/2995/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Aurangabad dismissed an application under section 482 CrPC challenging a discharge rejection in a private complaint under section 138 NI Act. The court held Section 258 CrPC inapplicable to private complaints and directed completion of trial.

What did the court decide?

Application for discharge under section 138 NI Act rejected; trial directed to be completed within six months.

Manohar Dwarkadas Rohra Vs M/S Videocon Industries Ltd. and… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

( 1 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

¶3

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2995 OF 2007

¶5

Manohar Dwarkadas Rohra VERSUS M/s Videocon Industries Ltd. and another.

¶6

APPLICANT

¶7

RESPONDENTS

¶8

Mr. P.F. Patni, advocate for the applicant. Mr. L.B. Palod, advocate for the respondent No.1.

¶9

[CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.]

¶10

[DATE : 8th September, 2010]

¶11

PER COURT :

¶12

Heard.

¶13

The application is filed under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code challenging the order dated 26th July, 2007, rendered by learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Ahmednagar. By the impugned order, the learned Magistrate rejected the application filed by the present applicant for his discharge in S.T.C. No.2805/2006.

¶14

The criminal case is instituted on private complaint for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable

¶15

Instruments Act. The learned Magistrate held that there is no

¶16

( 2 )

¶17

provision under the Criminal Procedure Code so as to discharge the applicant. The complaint case cannot be brought to an end by order of discharge unless it is dismissed in default or after the due trial. The learned advocate would submit that the proceedings can be stopped under section 258 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In my opinion, Section 258 of the Criminal Procedure Code is inapplicable simply for the reason that it would come into play only in the cases instituted by the police and not in private complaint. Hence, the impugned order cannot be termed as perverse or arbitrary.

¶18

The application is dismissed, with liberty to file appropriate application if the applicant desires to raise any other question of law for the purpose of the exoneration from criminal liability. The learned Judicial Magistrate to take up final hearing of the criminal case immediately and to complete the trial within period of six (6) months as far as possible unless there is legal foreground to take any other course. The direction to complete the trial is subject to availability of the jurisdiction.

¶19

[V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE

¶20

NPJ/criapln2995-07

¶21

( 3 )

Manohar Dwarkadas Rohra v. M/S Videocon Industries Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manohar Dwarkadas Rohra v. M/S Videocon Industries 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

Sant Eknath Labour Welfare Education and Charitable Trust Vs Laxman Limba Kirtane

The State of Mah Vs Ravindra Eknath Marathe

The State of Maharashtra Vs Sangeeta Namdeo Likhe

Vimalbai Laxman Taru Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shankar Dadarao Nagargoje and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shirish Abhaykumar Chakote Vs Digamber Haribhau Landge