Afzal Bismillah Khan vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2025)

Afzal Bismillah Khan vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The Application stands disposed subject to the clarification that, if the Applicant assails the learned Magistrate's post-remand order dated 24 February 2025 before the Court of Sessions, he may urge that the observations in the impugned order are against the settled principles of law. No substantive relief granted on merits.

Issue for consideration

Whether the challenge to the Sessions Court order dated 4 November 2023 (which had set aside the Magistrate's rejection of the Complainant's Section 143-A NI Act application) survives in view of the subsequent order passed by the learned Magistrate on 24 February 2025 after remand.

Court's answer

Since the learned Magistrate has, after remand, passed an order on 24 February 2025 on the application (Exhibit 7), the challenge to the impugned order dated 4 November 2023 does not survive.

Ratio / Principle

In the event the Applicant assails the learned Magistrate's order dated 24 February 2025 in an appropriate proceeding before the Court of Sessions, it would be open to the Applicant to urge that the observations in the impugned order are against the settled principles of law.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Application under the Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court challenging the order dated 4 November 2023 of the learned Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Greater Bombay, by which the order dated 16 May 2023 of the learned Magistrate, Kurla, rejecting the Complainant's application under Section 143-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, was set aside and the matter remanded for afresh determination. During the pendency of the petition, the Court was informed that the learned Magistrate had, after remand, passed a fresh order on 24 February 2025 on the application (Exhibit 7). Holding that, in view of this development, the challenge to the impugned order did not survive, the Court disposed of the Application, while making it clear that if the Applicant assailed the Magistrate's order dated 24 February 2025 before the Court of Sessions, it would be open to him to urge that the observations in the impugned order were against the settled principles of law. The Applicant's contention that the impugned observations were contrary to settled law was noted as a submission; the point itself was left open and was not decided by this Court.

40-APL-400-2024.DOC

Arun Sankpal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

APPLICATION NO. 400 OF 2024

Afzal Bismillah Khan ..Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr …Respondents

Mr. Manoj Harit, with Niket Harit, i/b Manoj Harit & Co, for the Applicant

Mr. Kiran Shinde, APP, for the Respondent-State. Mr. Mahesh Devani, for the Respondent.

CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : 9^th OCTOBER 2025

P.C.:

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

The challenge in this Petition is to an order dated 4^th November

ARUN

RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL

Digitally signed by ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL Date: 2025.10.13 09:06:52 +0530

2023, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Greater Bombay, whereby an order dated 16^th May 2023 passed by the learned Magistrate, Kurla, rejecting the Application filed by the Complainant under Section 143 A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, came to be set aside and the matter was remanded back to the learned Magistrate for afresh determination after considering the aspects discussed in the said order.

1/2

40-APL-400-2024.DOC

The Court is informed that, after the remand of the Application (Exhibit “7”) for afresh determination, the learned Magistrate has passed an order on 24^th February 2025.

In view of the aforesaid developments, the challenge to the impugned order does not survive.

The learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that, the observations in the impugned order, in the light of which, the learned Magistrate was directed to decide the Application afresh, are against the settled principles of law.

In the event, the Applicant assails the order passed by the learned Magistrate dated 24^th February 2025 in an appropriate proceeding before the Court of Sessions, it would be open for the Applicant to urge that the observations in the impugned order are against the settled principles of law.

Subject to the aforesaid clarifications, the Application stands disposed.

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]

2/2