High Court stayed a non-bailable warrant issued in a prosecution for cheque bounce. The petitioner agreed to appear in court and furnish a correct address. The petition was disposed of.
Stay of N.B.W. for one month; liberty to apply for cancellation; direction to furnish correct address.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
20-wp-3076-23
1 of 4
Gokhale
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3076 OF 2023
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 20314 OF 2023
Rakesh Kumar Paswan ..Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr...Respondents
__________
Ms. Renuka Sarswat a/w. Amitabh Azad i/b. Shyam Sunder Tiwari
for Petitioner.
Mr. Arfan Sait, APP for State/Respondent No.1.
Ms. Shabnam Latiwala for Respondent No.2.
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 30NOVEMBER 2023
PC :
1. The present petition is filed by the original accused No.2
in C.C.No.2839/SS/2019 pending before the Metropolitan
Magistrate, 44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai. At the outset, learned
counsel for the petitioner states that she is not pressing the prayer
clause (III). The main prayer in this petition is for quashing and/or
setting aside the N.B.W. issued by the learned Magistrate.
2.Heard Ms. Renuka Sarswat, learned counsel for the
Digitally signed by VINOD VINOD BHASKAR BHASKAR GOKHALE GOKHALE Date: 2023.12.01 10:59:20 +0530
Petitioner, Ms. Shabnam Latiwala, learned counsel for the
2 of 420-wp-3076-23
Respondent No.2 and Mr. Arfan Sait, learned APP for the
State/Respondent No.1.
3.The Petitioner is facing trial for commission of offence
punishable U/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After
issuance of process, the petitioner was not remaining present
before the Trial Court. Therefore, the complainant i.e. the
Respondent No.2 herein preferred an application for issuing
proclamation against the accused. The learned Magistrate vide the
impugned order dated 11.04.2023 issued N.B.W. against the
accused Nos.2 and 3. The petitioner is the accused No.2.
4.Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, states
that the petitioner shall remain present before the Trial Court and
make an application for cancellation of warrant. She submitted
that the petitioner shall remain present before the Trial Court on
every date unless exempted for a reasonable cause. The statement
is recorded and accepted. The petitioner shall thus show his
bonafides.
5. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2-complainant
3 of 420-wp-3076-23
submitted that the petitioner has not been giving his correct
residential address and, therefore, there was difficulty in executing
the warrant. She submitted that the petitioner be directed to
furnish his correct residential address before the learned
Magistrate.
6.Considering that the petitioner has showed his
willingness to remain present before the Trial Court and also
considering the statement made by the petitioner, he can be
protected; so that, he can appear before the learned Magistrate
and face the prosecution.
7.Hence, the following order:
O R D E R
i) The N.B.W. issued against the petitioner on 11.04.2023 in C.C.No.2839/SS/2019 by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai, is stayed for the period of one month from today.ii)During that period, the petitioner is at liberty to make appropriate application for cancellation of4 of 420-wp-3076-23
N.B.W. before the learned Magistrate by giving
advance notice to the Respondent No.2-
complainant.
iii)The petitioner shall furnish his correct residential
address where he will be available in future. He
shall furnish that address before the learned
Magistrate.
iv)With this direction, the petition, as well as, the
interim application are disposed of.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to stay the non-bailable warrant issued in the cheque dishonour case pending before the trial court.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rakesh Kumar Paswan
The State of Maharashtra
Respondent No.2
SARANG V. KOTWAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court