Allowed

Devendrappa Malligawda v. Deepak Vikram Nalawade and Anr.

Bombay HC9 Oct 2018ALP/94/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against dismissal of a cheque bounce complaint due to non-service of bailable warrant, the High Court held that dismissal was improper as the warrant was not served or returned. The appeal was allowed, and the dismissal order was quashed.

What did the court decide?

The appeal allowed; impugned order dated 24th July 2013 quashed and set aside; complaint restored to the file for disposal.

Devendrappa Malligawda Vs Deepak Vikram Nalawade and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

8.ALP.94.15 (corrected).doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.94 OF 2015

¶5

Mr. Devendrappa Malligawda … Applicant V/s.

¶6

Mr. Deepak Vikram Nalawade & Ors. ... Respondents

¶7

Mr. Suhas S. Inamdar, Advocate for the Applicant.

¶8

Mrs. M.R. Tidke, APP for the Respondent/State.

¶9

CORAM : A.M.BADAR, J.

¶10

DATED : 9^th OCTOBER 2018.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

Despite of service, respondent No.1/original accused was absent. Therefore, notice of final disposal was directed to be issued vide Order dated 26^th September 2017. Thereafter, respondent No.1 appeared through his counsel on 25^th September 2018. However, the matter was adjourned by consent of parties to 9^th October 2018. Today, none appears for respondent No.1.

¶13

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the

¶14

1/4

¶15

Aarti Palkar

¶16

8.ALP.94.15 (corrected).doc

¶17

applicant/original complainant. Leave, as prayed, is granted. Admit. Heard forthwith in view of notice of final disposal and as short controversy is involved in the instant appeal.

¶18

The learned counsel for the appellant/original complainant argued that for securing presence of the respondent No.1/original accused, bailable warrant was issued on 19^th March 2013. On 21^st May 2013 it was not served and hence the case was adjourned to 24^th July 2013. However, abruptly on 24^th July 2013 though the bailable warrant was not executed, the complaint came to be dismissed by resorting to the provisions of Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶19

The learned APP appears for the respondent No.2/State.

¶20

The appellant/original complainant had filed a complaint alleging the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. He averred that he had advanced handloan of Rs.2,50,000/- to the respondent No.1. For repayment of part of that handloan, the respondent No.1 had given a cheque of Rs.50,000/- to him, which was presented to the banker and was returned with remark “Not arranged For”.

¶21

2/4

¶22

Aarti Palkar

¶23

8.ALP.94.15 (corrected).doc

¶24

After perusal of the complaint and the affidavit of the

¶25

appellant/original complainant, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Solapur had directed issuance of process. However, the respondent No.1/accused could not be served. Therefore, on 19^th March 2013, the learned trial Court directed issuance of bailable warrant. The next date fixed for hearing was 21^st May 2013. On that day, as seen from the Roznama, the bailable warrant was not served. This implies that it was not returned to the concerned Court after its execution. The next date given by the learned trial Court was 24^th July 2013. On that day, by recording absence of the complainant and his advocate, the complaint came to be dismissed by resorting to the provisions of Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the respondent No.1 came to be acquitted.

¶26

When the learned trial Court had came to the conclusion that for securing presence of the respondent No.1/original accused, bailable warrant needs to be issued and when that bailable warrant was actually issued, but not served, there was no propriety in insisting attendance of the appellant/original

¶27

3/4

¶28

Aarti Palkar

¶29

8.ALP.94.15 (corrected).doc

¶30

complainant. The complaint ought not to have been dismissed by

¶31

the learned trial Court when the bailable warrant issued by it for securing presence of the respondent No.1/original accused was not even returned back to it either by executing or by necessary endorsement thereon.

¶32

In this view of the matter, the impugned order of dismissal of the complaint cannot be sustained. Therefore, the order.

¶33

- : ORDER : -

¶34

i) The appeal is allowed.

¶35

ii) The impugned order dated 24^th July 2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (Municipal Court), Solapur, below Exhibit 1 S.T.C.No.1088 of 2007 between the parties quashed and Set aside.

¶36

iii) The said complaint is restored to the file of the concerned Court for disposal according to law.

¶37

viii) The appeal stands disposed off accordingly.

¶38

(A.M.BADAR J.)

¶39

4/4

¶40

Aarti Palkar

Devendrappa Malligawda v. Deepak Vikram Nalawade and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devendrappa Malligawda v. Deepak Vikram Nalawade 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

Ajay Mahavir Gechand Vs the State of Maharashtra

Johara Jilani Shaikh and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Balasaheb Shankargonda Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

M/S. Gupta Steel Corporation Vs M/S. Jay Mechanical Pvt. Ltd.

Salim Abbas Khan Vs Nusrat Rasid Khan and Anr.

Mohd. Salim Mohd. Shamim Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra