Partly allowed

Nilkanth C. Joshi and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC14 Aug 2013WP/1575/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the lower judge's order recalling the complainant under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to produce documents in a Section 138 NI Act case. The Court termed the second application as a ruse to bypass an earlier rejection, dismissed the petitions to recall the complainant, but left the merits of the underlying cheque matter untouched.

What did the court decide?

The order granting production of documents or recalling the complainant under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was set aside. Respective petitions in this writ case were allowed. The impugned order in the trial of

Nilkanth C. Joshi and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2013)

wp1598-13grp.sxw

1/2

Pvr

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1598 OF 2013 with CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1575 OF 2013

¶7

1.Shri.Nilkanth Chintamani Joshi & Anr. …Petitioners versus 1.The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents

¶8

Mr.Anand S.Patil, for Petitioners.

¶9

Mr.A.R.Patil, APP for State-Respondent no.1.

¶10

Mr.Manoj A.Patil, for Respondent no.2.

¶11

--- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 14^th AUGUST, 2013

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

Heard.

¶14

The respondent – Vasantrao D. Jadhav has filed proceedings

¶15

under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act before the learned JMFC at Kolhapur vide C.C.nos.2747 of 2007 and 2746 of 2007.

¶16

On 4.5.2010, an application purportedly under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. was moved, explaining to produce important documents which needed to be exhibited. Few of the documents bear signatures of the

wp1598-13grp.sxw

2/2

Pvr

complainant and consequently, it is essential to recall the complainant for its proving. The said application after exhaustive hearing to the parties was rejected on 28.5.2010.

¶21

Again on identical ground, another application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. was moved and the learned Judge allowed the same. Discipline warrants, if earlier application under section 311 of Cr.P.C. is rejected, unless corrected by Superior Court, the Trial Judge should not have entertained the same. New circumstance by way of production of copy of civil suit, is a ruse to come out of earlier order dated 28.5.2010. The learned Judge should not have been impressed by such chicanery.

¶22

I do not see any merit in the order granting production of the documents or recalling of the complainant himself for further evidence under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. The order is set aside. Respective petitions allowed. This Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the matter. The other ways of performance to legal obligation remain unbridled . The learned Judge considering the age of the matter and controversy, shall expeditiously dispose of the case.

Nilkanth C. Joshi and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nilkanth C. Joshi and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Sanjay Shankar Sagale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Devi Shivanesan and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mohd Shahid Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sachin Annaso Chudappa Vs Hdfc Bank Ltd. and Anr.

Gulabi Narayan Pujari Vs Shilpa Sadashiv Shetty and Anr.

Mahaveer Bapu Khot Vs Ajit Appasaheb Vagyani and Anr.