Dismissed

Puneet Kumar v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC9 Oct 2019APL/1320/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rejection of three criminal applications challenging the issuance of non-bailable warrants in part-heard cheque dishonour cases. The court held the challenges had no merit and directed applicants to seek cancellation from the trial court. It explicitly advised that if the cancellation application is filed along with a motion to take the case on board, the trial court must hear the cancellation app

What did the court decide?

Applications rejected; liberty granted to approach the trial Magistrate for cancellation of the non-bailable warrant.

Puneet Kumar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

(501-503)APLNo.1320-21-22-2019.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1320 OF 2019 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1321 OF 2019 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1322 OF 2019

¶5

Puneet Kumar ...Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr.… Respondent

¶6

Mr.Diwakar Singh, Advocate for the Applicant.

¶7

Mr.A.R.Kapadnis, APP for the Respondent No.1/State in APL/1320
/2019.

¶8

Mr.A.A.Palkar, APP for the Respondent No.1/State in APL/1321
/2019.

¶9

Mr.Vinod Chate,APP for the Respondent No.1/State in APL/1322 /
2019 .

¶10

CORAM : A.M.BADAR J.

¶11

DATED : 9th OCTOBER 2019.

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

1Not on board. Taken on board at the request of the
learned Counsel for the applicant.

¶14

1/3

¶15

Gaikwad RD

¶16

(501-503)APLNo.1320-21-22-2019.odt

¶17

2Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the
applicant/original accused in proceedings under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 filed by the respondent
No.2. The learned Counsel for the applicant drew my attention to
the pleading made in the application and argued that the learned
trial Court is not cancelling the non-bailable warrant, but is taking
the accused in custody and, therefore, liberty of the applicant be
protected and the Order issuing non-bailable warrant be quashed
and set aside.

¶18

3I see absolutely no merit in these applications under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as such powers
conferred to this Court requires to be exercised sparingly and that
too in appropriate cases. In the case in hand, Order directing
issuance of non-bailable warrant against the accused is challenged.
Perusal of roznama relied by the applicant in each cases shows
that the complaints of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 were part heard. Way back on
19/04/2018, because of absence of the accused in part heard
cases, order directing issuance of non-bailable warrant was passed
by the learned trial Magistrate. It is seen that on 25/07/2018 on
application for cancellation of non-bailable warrant, the learned
trial Magistrate has shown indulgence and cancelled the non-
bailable warrant by imposing penalty of Rs.500/-. However, it
appears that again in the part heard complaints, the accused failed

¶19

2/3

¶20

Gaikwad RD

¶21

(501-503)APLNo.1320-21-22-2019.odt

¶22

to attend despite rejection of his application for permanent
exemption. Hence, ultimately on 11/02/2019, the learned trial
Magistrate had again issued non-bailable warrant against the
applicant/original accused. No infirmity can be found in such
course of conduct adopted by the learned trial Magistrate as the
cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
are required to be decided in time bound manner under the
provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act itself. Ultimately, the
cases involved in these applications are part heard. Hence, the
applications are devoid of merit. Therefore, the Order :

¶23

ORDER

¶24

(i) The applications are rejected.

¶25

(ii) However, the applicants are at liberty to approach the
learned trial Magistrate by filing suitable application for
cancellation of non-bailable warrant and if such
applications are filed, the learned trial Magistrate is free
to exercise its jurisdiction in entertaining those
applications.

¶26

(iii)Needless to mention that if the application for taking the
case on board is moved along with the application for
cancellation of non-bailable warrant, the learned trial
Magistrate should take the case on board and should pass
the Order immediately.

¶27

3/3

¶28

Gaikwad RD

Puneet Kumar v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puneet Kumar 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

Amin Abdul Kader Memon Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pradeep Dharma Pawar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nanda @ Nandabai Baban Bagve Vs Baban Pandurang Bagve and Ors.

Mahiboob @ Tanya Peerahamad Shabhai Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Manish Yashdev Bahl Vs Suman M Bahl Alias Suman Giansingh Saini and Anr.

Sandeep Pandurang More and Anr. Vs the Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr.