Dismissed

Dr. Vijay Deepnarayan Pandey v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Mar 2015WP/891/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal writ petition, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay quashed an order of the trial court that directed the examination of a bank manager. The court held that since the petitioner had admitted to cheque dishonour under Section 313 CrPC, witnessing the memo regarding payment stoppage was unnecessary and wasted time.

What did the court decide?

The order of the Learned Magistrate passing order in Regular Criminal Case No.528 of 2011 allowing examination of additional witness is set aside.

Dr. Vijay Deepnarayan Pandey Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

908_wp_891_2015.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.891 OF 2015

¶3

Dr. Vijay Deepnarayan Pandey ...Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. …. Respondents

¶6

Ms Anita Vasant i/b Mr. Omprakash Pandey for Petitioner. Mr. A.R. Patil, APP for Respondent No.1-State.

¶7

CORAM:-M.L. TAHALIYANI, J. DATED : 20^th MARCH, 2015.

¶8

P.C.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned APP

¶10

for the Respondent No.1-State.

¶11

Petitioner is facing trial for the offence punishable under

¶12

section 420 of the IPC in Regular Criminal Case No.528 of 2011 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Thane. Evidence of prosecution is fully recorded. The statement of the Petitioner has also been recorded under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It seems that Respondent / prosecution had filed an application for examining additional witness i.e. Bank Manager to prove the Bank memo which indicated that the cheque issued by the Petitioner was dishonoured

¶13

megha Page No.1 of 2

¶14

908_wp_891_2015.doc

¶15

because the payment was stopped by the Petitioner. Learned Magistrate after hearing both the sides granted the prayer of Respondent No.1.

¶16

Learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that there

¶17

was no necessity to examine the witness and it will be nothing but waste of time. My attention was invited to the statement of Petitioner recorded under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the learned Magistrate. The Petitioner has admitted in his statement that one of the cheques was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and remaining two cheques were dishonoured because the payment was stopped. In view of the admission on the part of the Petitioner there was no necessity to examine the witness from Bank. In my opinion learned Magistrate has unnecessarily wasted lot of time in doing this exercise.

¶18

Result is that order passed by the learned Magistrate below

¶19

Exh.37 in Regular Criminal Case No.528 of 2011 is set aside. Trial Court to proceed further in accordance with law.

¶20

Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶21

megha Page No.2 of 2

Dr. Vijay Deepnarayan Pandey v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Vijay Deepnarayan Pandey v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Artiskinky Motion Pictures Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Gangasagar Nimraj Dev Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pramodkumar D. Pramanik and Ors. Vs the Regional Passport Officer and Anr.

Sumitra @ Sangeeta Mahesh Razak Vs Rubina Asif Naik and Anr.

Sandeep Bushan Jain Vs Ajit Jamnadas Mehta and Anr.

Neeta Pritam Lotle Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.