Dismissed

Bhaskar Manju Puthran v. Shri Prashant Gawde and Anr.

Bombay HC10 Jan 2011WP/1565/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition quashing a cheque dishonour case instituted in Bangalore. The court held that it lacks jurisdiction as the cheque was not shown to be payable within Mumbai, and it lacks power to transfer the petition to Bangalore.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with liberty to pursue remedy before the Court of Competent Jurisdiction; request for transfer rejected.

Bhaskar Manju Puthran Vs Shri Prashant Gawde and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

1wp-1565-10

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 1565 of 2010

¶6

Bhaskar Manju Puthran .. Petitioner. Versus

¶7

Shri Prashant Gawde & others .. Respondents.

¶8

Mr M. V. Holmagi, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶9

Mr D.P. Adsule, A.P.P.for the State.

¶10

CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR &

¶11

A.R. JOSHI, JJ.

¶12

DATED : 10TH JANUARY,2011.

¶13

P.C.:-

¶14

This petition is filed for quashing of the criminal

¶15

action instituted in the Court of Bangalore. There is no
difficulty in accepting the broad submission of the
learned counsel for the petitioner that it is open to this
Court to entertain the writ petition, even to quash the
proceeding instituted in the Court at Bangalore. However,
exercise of such power is circumscribed. This Court had
occasion to examine that aspect elaborately in the
decision in the case of Trade-Wings Ltd and orsVs. State

¶16

of Maharashtra in Criminal Writ Petition No.2456 of 2008

¶17

2wp-1565-10

¶18

¶19

decided on 20th September, 2010. Unless the petitioner is
in a position to point out and has averred in the petition
that the cheque, in respect of which the prosecution has
been launched for offence under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, was in fact, payable within
the jurisdiction of this Court, the fact that the office
of the petitioner is at Mumbai and that loan was disbursed

¶20

in the Bank in Mumbai and all payments were made in
Mumbai, do not take the matter any further.

¶21

2.The argument of the petitioner that in spite of
absence of specific averment in the petition, the Court is
bound to entertain the writ petition does not commend to
us. Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner

¶22

to pursue remedy before the Court of Competent
Jurisdiction. We express no opinion on the merits of the

¶23

contention raised by the petitioner about the criminal
case instituted against the petitioner. Order accordingly.

¶24

3.At this stage, Mr Holmagi submits that instead
of dismissing the writ petition, this Court should
transfer the petition to the High Court at Bangalore. We
are afraid, this Court does not have such a power. Hence,
that request is rejected.

( A.M. KHANWILKAR,J)

(A.R. JOSHI, J)

3wp-1565-10

Bhaskar Manju Puthran v. Shri Prashant Gawde and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhaskar Manju Puthran v. Shri Prashant Gawde 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

Mohammed Naushad K Han Vs Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Brijlal Bharti S/O Lateshri B.R. Bharati Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mohd. Juber Saiyed Anwar Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Shankar Kerba Bansode @ Fawdya and Ors.

Dr. (Mrs.) Preeti Mayekar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Murugasham Narayan Swami Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.