Dismissed

Jayesh Shah v. M/S. Visa Syndicates and Ors.

Bombay HC17 Jul 2017APL/535/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal application, the High Court of Bombay Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction dismissed the applicant's plea for interference with the learned Magistrate's order rejecting a request for document production under Section 91 Cr.P.C. The Court held that since related complaints are pending before the same court, the remedy was to request the MAGISTRATE directly rather than file a Section 91

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed reserving liberty to file an application before the learned Magistrate calling for documents filed in complaints under Section 138 of the Act.

Jayesh Shah Vs M/S. Visa Syndicates and Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

APL535_17.sxw

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.535 OF 2017

¶4

Jayesh Shah … Applicant Vs. M/s. Visa Syndicates and others … Respondents

¶5

Mr. Jayesh Shah, Applicant in person. Ms Rita Jain, APP for Respondent-State.

¶6

CORAM : R. G. KETKAR, J. DATE : JULY 17, 2017

¶7

P.C. :

¶8

As the regular Court presided over by Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. K. Menon has passed “Not Before Me” order, the applicant has moved this Court as per the administrative order passed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice.

¶9

Heard Mr. Shah, Applicant in person and Ms Jain, learned APP for respondent-State at length.

¶10

By this Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), applicant has challenged the orders dated 13.04.2017 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 6^th Court, Mazgaon at Sweree, Mumbai in (a) an application below exhibit13 in C.C.No.325/SW/2006, C.C.No.326/SW/2006 and C.C.No.328/ SW/2006 below exhibit-13 as also an application below exhibit-12 in C.C.No.327/SW/2006. By these orders, the learned Magistrate rejected the applications made by the applicant / complainant for issuing summons or requisition for production of documents listed at exhibit-A annexed with the application.

¶11

In support of this Application, Mr. Shah submitted that

¶12

1/2

¶13

APL535_17.sxw

¶14

complaints are instituted by the applicant herein under Section 420 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'I.P.C.'). Applicant has also instituted proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'Act') and the same are pending before the same Court namely, 6^th Court, Mumbai. He, therefore, filed applications under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. inter alia praying for ordering or summoning or directing production of the documents referred in paragraph 14-A(i) to (iii). By the impugned order, the learned Magistrate rejected the applications on the ground that in the application, no averments are made as to whom Court has to issue summons to produce relevant documents. In other words, the direction for production of documents is to be issued against whom is not specified.

¶15

In my opinion, the applications made by the applicant / complainant under Section 91 were wholly uncalled for. Admittedly, the applicant has instituted complaints under Section 420 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and other set of complaints under Section 138 of the Act. Both the set of complaints are pending before the same Court. The applications were made under Section 91 in complaints filed under I.P.C. Instead of filing applications under Section 91, applicants should have requested the learned Magistrate who is also seized of the complaints filed under Section 138 for production of documents filed in the complaints under Section 420 read with Section 34 I.P.C. In view thereof, no case is made out for interfering with the impugned order. Application fails and the same is dismissed reserving liberty to the applicant to file application before the learned Magistrate calling for the documents filed in complaints filed under Section 138 of the Act. Order accordingly.

¶16

(R. G. KETKAR, J.)

¶17

Minal Parab

¶18

2/2

Jayesh Shah v. M/S. Visa Syndicates and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayesh Shah v. M/S. Visa Syndicates and Ors.

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

Madhusudan Goswami Vs Stci Commodities Ltd. and Othrs

M/S. Gulraj Constructions Thr. Its Partner Mr.Sudhir S.Harishingani Vs the Institute of Cost Accountants of India,Thr. Its Secretary

M/S. Gammon India Ltd. Vs M/S. Vvr Crushers and Constructions through Its Proprietor Shri.P.Srinivasa Bab S/O. Shri.P.v.Rao

M/S. Raymond Ltd. Vs Ashok Narayan Mohite

Jayesh Shah Vs M/S. Visa Syndicates and Ors.

M/S. Raymond Ltd. Vs Dnyaneshwar Chaudhary and Ors.