Dismissed¶25

Jayshree Daulatram Kawle v. Lata Rajendra Soni and Anr.

Bombay HC16 Feb 2026WP/6102/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

S.138 NI Act complaint; witness summons; Exhibit-110; defence witness Notary; Exhibit-109; disputed notarized Power of Attorney dated 20.11.2014; two sets of Notary certificates; Advocate K.P. Dubey; complainant's advocate neither executant nor Notary; reasoned order; belated application; final arguments stage; abuse of process of law; delay of 2015 complaint; Criminal Writ Petition No. 6102 of 2025; Bombay High Court; Gautam A. Ankhad, J.; order dated 24.07.2025; Metropolitan Magistrate 70th Court Mazgaon; Case No.1193/SS/2015; writ of mandamus and certiorari; quash and set aside; dismissed.

What did the court decide?

There is no merit in the Petition; the learned Magistrate passed a reasoned order rejecting Exhibit-110. ¶20

Jayshree Daulatram Kawle vs Lata Rajendra Soni and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus and/or certiorari should issue to call for the papers and proceedings of Case No.1193/SS/2015 and to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 24.07.2025 of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (rejection of Exhibit-110). +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

There is no merit in the Petition; the learned Magistrate passed a reasoned order rejecting Exhibit-110.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

The Petitioner had already examined the concerned Notary as a defence witness (below Exhibit-109); the Notary denied issuance of the certificate dated 20th November 2014 for notarizing the Power of Attorney in question.

¶20

Key takeaways

Once the Notary himself denied notarization of the document, summoning the Advocate representing the complainant to prove or disprove the same notarial act was rightly held to be unnecessary.ratio¶20
The document which the Petitioner claims contradicts the Notary's evidence has not been exhibited and does not form part of the trial Court record.ratio¶20
The learned Magistrate correctly appreciated that the Advocate for the complainant is neither the executant nor the Notary.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction), Gautam A. Ankhad, J.; Criminal Writ Petition No. 6102 of 2025; decided 10 March 2026; Dismissed. Accused-petitioner in a pending Section 138 NI Act complaint (Case No.1193/SS/2015, Metropolitan Magistrate, 70th Court, Mazgaon) sought mandamus/certiorari to quash the Magistrate's judgment and order dated 24.07.2025 rejecting her application (Exhibit-110) for witness summons to Advocate K.P. Dubey, erstwhile advocate of the complainant, concerning a disputed Power of Attorney dated 20th November 2014 and two conflicting sets of Notary certificates. Held: the concerned Notary had already been examined as defence witness (below Exhibit-109) and denied issuing the certificate dated 20.11.2014 notarizing the Power of Attorney; once the Notary denied notarization, summoning the complainant's advocate — who is neither executant nor Notary — to prove or disprove the same notarial act was rightly held unnecessary; the document purporting to contradict the Notary's evidence was not exhibited and formed no part of the trial Court record; the Notary's cross-examination had in any event been permitted despite the belated application at the final-arguments stage; the Petition was a device to delay a 2015 complaint ripe for final adjudication and an abuse of process of law; accordingly dismissed.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 6102 OF 2025

¶2

Jayshree Daulatram Kawle .. Petitioner

¶3

Vs.

¶4

Lata Rajendra Soni and Anr.

¶5

.. Respondents

¶6

Mr. Sarang Bhatia, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. Kishor Bhatia, Advocate for Respondent no.1. Mrs. M.M. Deshmukh, I/C. P.P. with Mr. J.P. Yagnik, Addl. P.P. for Respondent No.2-State.

¶7

CORAM : GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.

¶8

DATE : 10^th MARCH 2026

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

The Petitioner who is an accused in a Complaint filed under

¶11

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 has filed this petition seeking the following relief :-

¶12

“(a) that the Writ of Mandamus and or certiorari be issued against respondents to call for papers and proceedings of the Case No.1193/SS/2015, filed before the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, 70^th court Mazgaon, Mumbai preferred against the order dated 24.07.2025 be called for and this Hon’ble Court after going through the legality, propriety and validity of the Judgment and order dated 24.07.2025, (Exhibit-A hereto), be pleased to quash and set aside the same.”

¶13

Mr. Sarang Bhatia, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, submits

¶14

that the learned Magistrate erred in rejecting the Petitioner’s

¶15

application (Exhibit-110) seeking issuance of witness summons to Advocate K.P. Dubey, who had represented the complainant before the

1/3

37 WP-6102-25.doc

bdpsps

trial Court. According to the Petitioner, there is a dispute on the Power of Attorney dated 20^th November 2014 which is produced by Respondent no.1 in the proceedings. It is contended that there exist two sets of certificates allegedly issued by the Notary, which would demonstrate that the notarized document/ Power of Attorney is doubtful or non-existent. It is therefore submitted that examination of Advocate K.P. Dubey was necessary to ascertain the truth.

¶20

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. I find no merit in the Petition. The learned Magistrate has passed a reasoned order rejecting Exhibit-110. The essence of the reasoning is that the Petitioner had already examined the concerned Notary, as a defence witness (below Exhibit-109). The said Notary denied issuance of the certificate dated 20^th November 2014 for notarizing the Power of Attorney in question. Once the Notary himself has denied notarization of the document, summoning the Advocate representing the complainant for the purpose of proving or disproving the same notarial act was rightly held to be unnecessary. The document which the Petitioner claims contradicts the evidence of the Notary has not been exhibited and does not form part of the trial Court record. The learned Magistrate has correctly appreciated that the

2/3

37 WP-6102-25.doc

bdpsps

Advocate for the complainant is neither the executant nor the Notary.

¶25

It is also material to note that the application to examine the Notary itself was moved at a belated stage when the matter was listed for final arguments. Despite such delay, the learned Magistrate permitted the cross-examination of the Notary. It is clear that the present Petition is filed to delay proceedings in a complaint of the year 2015, which is otherwise ripe for final adjudication. The Petition is an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, Writ Petition no. 6102 of 2025 is dismissed.

¶26

[ GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J. ]

¶27

Digitally signed by BHARAT BHARAT DASHARATH DASHARATH PANDIT PANDIT Date: 2026.03.13 11:07:20 +0530

¶28

3/3

¶29

37 WP-6102-25.doc

¶30

bdpsps

Jayshree Daulatram Kawle v. Lata Rajendra Soni and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayshree Daulatram Kawle v. Lata Rajendra Soni and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ecogreen Envirotech Solutions Ltd. vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumabi through Its (Solid Waste Management)

Ecogreen Envirotech Solutions Ltd. vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumabi through Its (Solid Waste Management)

Maheshkumar G. Garodia vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Urban Development Department

Pramila Subhashchand Mishra vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kinjal Api Sheth Jv a Joint Venture vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Chandrashekar Mukund Padhye and Anr. vs Madhukar Patilbuva Sangamnere and Ors.