Remanded

Chetan Dogra (Huf) v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC5 Jul 2013WP/433/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge of the Bombay High Court was approached via writ petition challenging the process in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court held that since the petitioner resided outside the jurisdiction, an inquiry under the amended Section 202 Cr.P.C. was necessary. The matter was remitted to the Metropolitan Magistrate for such inquiry. No opinion was expresse

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were disposed of with a direction to remit the matter to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for conducting an inquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. and passing an appropriate or

Chetan Dogra (Huf) Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2013)

wp432-10.sxw

1/3

Pvr

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITON NO.432 OF 2010

¶7

Chentan Dogra (HUF) …Petitioner versus 1.State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents AND

¶8

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITON NO.433 OF 2010 Chentan Dogra (HUF) …Petitioner versus 1.State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents AND

¶9

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITON NO.434 OF 2010

¶10

Chentan Dogra (HUF) …Petitioner versus 1.State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents ---

¶11

Mr.Subhash Jha i/b. M/s.Law Global, for Petitioner. Mr.D.R.More, APP for Respondent no.1-State. Mr.Satish ManeShinde i/b. Ms.Snehal Khairnar, for Respondent no.2.

¶12

CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 5^th July, 2013 ---

wp432-10.sxw

2/3

Pvr

P.C. :

Heard.

In the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the accused-petitioner has questioned the process on the precise ground that the residential inquiry which was imperative for the learned Judge to have made, was not adhered to and the process was issued. According to the writ petitioner, the accused/petitioner resides outside the jurisdiction of the Court of learned M.M. as his residential address known to the original complainant is (at page 12) 801, Tower no.I, NRI Complex, Seawoods Estate, Palm Beach Road, Nerul, New Mumbai. There is no controversy that the residential address of the writ petitioner is outside the jurisdiction of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate or limits of city of Mumbai.

¶19

In terms of explanation indicated under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. by virtue of amendment, it was expected of the learned Judge, before issuance of process to have venture to the aspect of jurisdiction and pass appropriate order.

¶20

The matter is remitted to the learned M.M., 21^st Court, in CC no.1334/SS/2008, CC no.1335/SS/2008, CC no.1336/SS/2008 for causing

wp432-10.sxw

3/3

Pvr

inquiry in terms of Section 202 (amended provisions) of Cr.P.C. and for appropriate order. This Court has not expressed any opinion on merits as canvassed in the writ petition.

¶25

Writ petitions are disposed of in the above terms. The learned Judge, considering the age of the matter, shall expeditiously disposed of the same. Parties may appear before the learned Judge on 12^th July,2013.

Chetan Dogra (Huf) v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chetan Dogra (Huf) 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

Vijaysingh Ramkrishna Verma Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rattanlal Bakshomal Kundani Vs Rajendra S/O Ladakchand Jain and Anr.

V. R. Krishnan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Chetan Dogra (Huf) Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Chetan Dogra (Huf) Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rajesh Kodiram Salunkhe Vs Mohan Kashinath Chavan and Anr.