Allowed

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

Bombay HC20 Dec 2021APL/566/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction allowed the cancellation of non-bailable warrants against applicants facing Section 138 NI Act charges. The Court recalled warrants upon applicants undertaking to file address details and ensure presence, while imposing a cost of Rs. 25,000 for their absence.

What did the court decide?

Recalled and cancelled the non-bailable warrants; imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on the applicants.

Ashok Kumar Agarwal and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

11.APL -566-2021.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

Criminal Application (APL) No. 566 / 2021

¶4

Ashok Kumar Agarwal and Anr. .. Applicants Versus. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents

¶5

¶6

Advocate Ashish Raghuwanshi i/by Mr. Jugal Kanani, for the Applicant.

¶7

Mr. Akshay Shah, Advocate for Respondent No.2. Mr. Y.M. Nakhawa, APP for State.

¶8

P.C. : -

¶9

Heard. Learned Counsel for the parties.

¶10

The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 63^rd Court,

¶11

Andheri, Mumbai declined to cancel the Non-Bailable Warrant, issued against the Applicants. That order is assailed before me.

¶12

Prima-facie, it appears from the impugned order

Najeeb..

1/3

11.APL -566-2021.doc

that the Applicants-Accused were irregular in attending the Court proceedings, who are resident of Delhi. Complainant’s grievance is that Applicants were not found on the given address, when the process was sought, to be served on them. Next grievance is that even Delhi Police were not taking efforts to serve the process on the Applicants, issued by the learned Magistrate. In the context of these facts, the learned Magistrate in order declining to cancel the Non-Bailable Warrant, has observed the continuous absence of Accused, has hampered the trial and therefore it was not just and proper to cancel the Non-Bailable Warrant. Still and all, Applicants are facing prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the trial has reached the stage of cross-examination of the witnesses. The next date scheduled before the trial Court is 27^th January, 2022. Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicants, on instructions undertakes that the Applicants shall remain present before the trial Court on each day; unless their presence is exempted, in the extra-ordinary circumstances, Applicants thus, undertake

¶17

Najeeb.. 2/3

¶18

11.APL -566-2021.doc

¶19

to file an Undertaking before this Court, whereby they shall set-out their correct address, contact details and email Id. A copy of the Undertaking shall be also given to the Complainant.

¶20

The Applicants are present in the Court. They shall file an Undertaking before this Court on or before 23^rd December, 2021.

¶21

Having regard to the facts of the case, I deem it appropriate to impose the cost of Rs. 25000/-. The cost shall be paid to the Complainant or to their Advocate on or before 23^rd December, 2021.

¶22

Thus, in view of the Undertaking, that Applicants have agreed to file before this Court, the Non-Bailable Warrant/s issued against the Applicants in Summary Criminal Case No. 5739/SS/2017 are recalled and cancelled. Application is allowed and disposed of.

¶23

List the application to verify the compliance on 23^rd December, 2021.

¶24

Digitally signed MOHAMMADNAJEEB by MOHAMMADNAJEEBMOHAMMAD (SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.) MOHAMMAD QAYYUM QAYYUM Date: 2021.12.21 Najeeb.. 14:34:50 +0530 3/3

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar Agarwal and Anr. 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

Aslam Sardar Malik Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Aslam Sardar Malik Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Meena Yogesh Gojare Alias Meena Shravan Ghengat Vs Yogesh Dhiraj Gojare and Ors.

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

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

Anand Sunil Suraiya Vs the State of Maharashtra