Partly allowed

Khushaboo Narayan Hemnani and Anr. v. Sai Kripa Stationer, Nashik through the Prop. Raj Jyoti Uttam Singh and Ors.

Bombay HC21 Dec 2021APL/223/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the applicants, albeit dismissed as against one, in a criminal appeal challenging the issuance of process in prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act for unpaid cheque against one, ordering quashing of criminal proceedings against the applicant who is held not to be a partner of the drawer firm.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in Summary Criminal Case No.6870/2018 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nashik, are quashed as against accused no.5.

Khushaboo Narayan Hemnani and Anr. Vs Sai Kripa Stationer… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

APL-223-2021—SR.17 December 21, 2021

¶2

1/4

¶3

Rane

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 223/2021

¶7

KHUSHABOO NARAYAN HEMNANI AND ANR.

¶8

} APPLICANTS

¶9

V/S.

¶10

SAI KRIPA STATIONER, NASHIK THROUGH THE PROP. RAJ JYOTI UTTAM SINGH AND ORS. } RESPONDENTS

¶11

¶12

Mr. Sachin Gite, Advocate for the applicants.

¶13

Mr. Sandeep Shinde i/by. Mr. Mayuri Karekar, Advocate for respondent no.1.

¶14

Mr. A.R. Patil, APP for State-respondent no.2.

¶15

Coram : Sandeep K. Shinde, J.

¶16

Tuesday, 21^st December, 2021.

¶17

P.C. :

¶18

1. Heard Mr. Gite, learned Counsel for the

¶19

applicants, and Mr. Shinde, learned Counsel for respondent no.1.

¶20

Applicants have been prosecuted for an offence

¶21

punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable

¶22

APL-223-2021—SR.17 December 21, 2021

¶23

2/4

¶24

Rane

¶25

Instruments Act in Summary Criminal Case No. 6870/2018 filed by the proprietor of M/s. Sai Kripa Stationer (respondent no.1) herein. In the said case, learned 6^th Judicial Magistrate First Class, issued process on 1^st February, 2019. This order is assailed in this application.

¶26

Mr. Gite, learned Counsel for the applicants, on

¶27

instructions, does not press the application on behalf of petitioner no.2-Miss. Geetika Narayan Hemnani-accused no.3. As such, petition is dismissed as against petitioner no.2.

¶28

In so far as petitioner no.1 is concerned, she is the daughter of petitioner no.2. She has been arraigned as accused, as a partner of M/s. Satguru Buildcon. Mr. Gite, learned Counsel for the applicant, would rely on the partnership deed dated 17^th December, 2009 to contend that, petitioner no.1 is or was not a partner of M/s. Satguru Buildcon at any point of time. Additionally, Mr. Gite, would rely on the income tax returns, of M/s. Satguru Buildcon, to contend that, statement of particulars furnished by M/s. Satguru Buildcon in Form No.3CB under Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1969 does not show that, petitioner

¶29

APL-223-2021—SR.17 December 21, 2021

¶30

3/4

¶31

Rane

¶32

no.1 was a partner of M/s. Satguru Buildcon. Mr. Gite, would therefore urge that, petitioner no.1 has been arraigned as accused, erroneously.

¶33

Contradicting the arguments of Mr. Gite, learned Counsel for the respondent, Mr. Shinde submitted that, material on record, distinctly suggests active participation

¶34

of the petitioner no.1 in the day-to-day business affairs of M/s. Satguru Buildcon, which according to Mr. Shinde, is evident from the Retirement Deed, which has been witnesseth by the petitioner no.1. I do not find substance in this submission. It is rejected.

¶35

Thus, in consideration of the facts of the case, it

¶36

is to be held that, petitioner being not a partner of M/s. Satguru Buildcon (drawer of the cheque) has been arraigned in subject case wrongly and improperly. In that view of the matter, the petition is partly allowed. As a result, the proceedings in Summary Criminal Case No.6870/2018 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nashik, are quashed as against accused no.5.

¶37

APL-223-2021—SR.17 December 21, 2021

¶38

4/4

¶39

Rane

¶40

7. Petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms and

¶41

disposed of.

¶42

Digitally signed by NEETA NEETA SHAILESH SHAILESH SAWANT SAWANT Date: 2021.12.22 17:11:46 +0530

¶43

(Sandeep K. Shinde, J.)

Khushaboo Narayan Hemnani and Anr. v. Sai Kripa Stationer, Nashik through the Prop. Raj Jyoti Uttam Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khushaboo Narayan Hemnani and Anr. v. Sai Kripa Stationer, Nashik through the Prop. Raj Jyoti Uttam Singh 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

Mohammed Shabbir Awan and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bassappa Layappa Gadade and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ashok Kumar Agarwal and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Raj Doulatram Rajpal Vs Ram Doulatram Rajpal and Anr.

Manish Arjun Kshatriya and Anr. Vs Arjun Laxman Kshatriya and Anr.

Sarika Nitin Salunkhe Vs the State of Maharashtra