Dismissed

Chandramani Matamani Tiwari v. Gufic Bioscience Ltd. and Anr.

Bombay HC22 Jan 2020WP/4773/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed petitions seeking quashing of complaints for offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court held that acquittal in a parallel prosecution for IPC offences based on the same cheque does not preclude a separate trial under Section 138 NI Act as both have different ingredients.

What did the court decide?

Petitions praying for quashing of complaints under Section 138 NI Act were dismissed.

Chandramani Matamani Tiwari Vs Gufic Bioscience Ltd. and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

9-WP-3429-2019.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3429/2019 WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.4767/2019
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.4769/2019
WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.4770/2019
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.4771/2019 WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.4773/2019 WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.4774/2019
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.4775/2019 WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.4776/2019 WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.4777/2019 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.4778/2019

¶5

CHANDRAMANI MATAMANI TIWARI ... PETITIONER.

¶6

V/s.

¶7

GUFIC BIOSCIENCES LTD. AND ANOTHER … RESPONDENTS.

…….

Chitra Sonawane 1

9-WP-3429-2019.doc

Mr.Kishor Patil, Advocate, i/b Dipak Mane for the petitioner. Mr.Girish Kulkarni, i/b Datta H. Pawar and Pratik Thakur for respondent No.1.

¶12

Mr.R.M.Pethe, APP for the State/respondent no.2.

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

1. By these petitions, the petitioners/accused are praying

¶15

for quashing and setting aside the complaint cases for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act filed against him by the contesting respondents i.e. the original complainant.

¶16

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the

¶17

petitioners/original accused. He vehemently argued that the subject cheques were subject matter of trial of offences punishable u/s 407, 408, 465, 468, 471, 420 and 120-B r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In that matter, FIR came to Chitra Sonawane 2

¶18

9-WP-3429-2019.doc

¶19

be lodged by respondents/original complainant and the petitioners were chargesheeted. That trial is ultimately culminated into acquittal of the petitioners of alleged offences. It is argued that the witness examined in that case based on police report had specifically deposed that the subject cheques were given as security. With this, it is contended that there is no propriety in continuing complaints for offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as in parallel proceedings, the petitioners are already exonerated.

¶20

As against this, learned counsel appearing for respondent/original complainant argued that acquittal in another case based on police report can at the most be the defence in the prosecution for offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He further submits that, after recording of plea in complaint cases for offences punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,

¶21

Chitra Sonawane 3

¶22

9-WP-3429-2019.doc

¶23

evidence is also recorded.

¶24

I have considered the submissions so advanced and also perused the material placed before me. It is seen that the petitioners were prosecuted for Indian Penal Code offences and that prosecution initiated on the basis of the police report resulted in acquittal of the petitioner. However, ingredients of offences punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are totally different than the offences with which accused were charged in prosecution initiated on the basis of chargesheet. Subject complaint cases for offences punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are on the stage of recording of evidence. Defence can get all just advantage of acquittal in Indian Penal Code offences by raising appropriate defence in the complaint cases. However, merely on that ground, prosecution for the offences punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can not be quashed.

¶25

Chitra Sonawane 4

¶26

9-WP-3429-2019.doc

¶27

In the result, the following order.

¶28

ORDER

¶29

Petitions are dismissed.

¶30

(A. M. BADAR, J.)

¶31

Chitra Sonawane 5

Chandramani Matamani Tiwari v. Gufic Bioscience Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandramani Matamani Tiwari v. Gufic Bioscience Ltd. 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

Suvarna Prashant Salve Vs Vimal Pandit Salve and Anr.

Faisal Latif Shaikh and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Gopal Gundu Sutar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shadaab Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shabbir Noor Mohammed Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Chandramani Matamani Tiwari Vs Gufic Biosciences Ltd. and Anr.