Dismissed

Praful Premji Gogari v. M/S. Scheme Switch Gears Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Bombay HC27 Nov 2012APL/461/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Application challenging a dismissal of a petition for cancellation of arrest warrants under Section 138 NI Act. The Court rejected the argument that the complaint failed to establish drawer liability and held the challenger was aware of prior proceedings. The application was dismissed for lack of merit.

What did the court decide?

The criminal application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

Praful Premji Gogari Vs M/S. Scheme Switch Gears Pvt. Ltd… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

vrd 1 APL461/12

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.461 OF 2012

¶5

Shri Parful Premji Gogari ...Applicant v/s M/s Scheme Switchgear Pvt.Ltd. and others ...Respondents

¶6

Mr Mujib Khan i/b Mr Vinod Singh for Applicant. Mr A.R. Patil, APP for State.

¶7

CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL J.

¶8

DATED : 27TH NOVEMBER 2012.

¶9

P.C. :-

¶10

The learned counsel for applicant called,

¶11

absent. Process under section 138 of Negotiable

¶12

Instruments Act was issued on 15^th June 2009. The applicant moved the learned Judge for cancellation of warrants in 2009 itself. Belatedly, the order of

¶13

process was challenged, dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by refusing to condone the delay. Now, application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. is moved. The learned counsel for accused

¶14

vrd 2 APL461/12

¶15

applicant submits that bare pointing role of accused applicant as authorised signatory, there is nothing in the complaint to fasten the liability. The accused applicant is not drawer of the cheque. The learned counsel has placed reliance to the judgment in the matter of Parag B. Tejani v/s State of Maharashtra and anr., reported in 2012 All M.R. (Cri) 393 to stress that a bald statement in the complaint that the Director is responsible for conduct of the business of the Company and the role of the Director is not sufficient enough.

¶16

The said matter of Parag Tejani was carried

¶17

to Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein the special leave

¶18

petition is admitted and no stay is granted to the proceedings under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Consequently, observations in the matter of Parag Tejani are flowing on a different pedestal.

¶19

The laxity on the part of the applicant is

¶20

obvious, the order of process is dated 15^th June

¶21

vrd 3 APL461/12 2009, belatedly revision application was moved in

¶22

between the learned Judge issued warrant against the applicant in the year 2009 which was terminated consequently, the applicant was conscious of the proceedings. The challenge being without proper explanation or excuse it was turned down.

¶23

The uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case, prima facie establish the offence. While exercising powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C., this court need not further entertain such slackness demonstrated by the accused asserting that he is not a drawer of the cheque which fact requires appreciation of evidence. Application lacks merits, dismissed.

Praful Premji Gogari v. M/S. Scheme Switch Gears Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praful Premji Gogari v. M/S. Scheme Switch Gears Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

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

Laxmi K. Advani Vs Kewal N. Advani and Anr.

Rajkumar B. Agarwal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dilip Gopinath Kharkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ramchandra Satappa Bandivadekar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

P.N.Dhoot and Ors. Vs Ram Harisinghani and Anr.

Ramchandra Satappa Bandivadekar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.