logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 BHC 2149 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : In the High Court of Bombay at Kolhapur
Case No : Criminal Writ Petition No. 1284 of 2005
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWIN D. BHOBE
Parties : M/s. Vasavi Communications Ltd., Andhra Pradesh & Others Versus M/s. Orion Photosensitive System, through its Proprietor - Pradeep V. Sakhadeo, Satara & Another
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioners: Shraddha Patil, Advocate. For the Respondents: R2, Shishir Hiray, Chief Public Prosecutor a/w Dr. A.A. Takalkar, APP.
Date of Judgment : 20-08-2026
Head Note :-
Constitution of India - Article 227 -
Judgment :-

Oral Judgment:

1. Heard Ms. Shraddha Patil, learned Advocate for the Petitioners and Mr. Shishir Hiray, learned Chief Public Prosecutor of the Respondent No.2 – State.

2. By this Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the Petitioners assail the Order dated 29th March 2004 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karad, District Satara (“Magistrate”) in Criminal Complaint No. 750 of 2004 (“impugned order”), by which the Magistrate has issued process against the Petitioners under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“N.I. Act”).

3. Rule was issued 17 August 2005.

4. Ms. Shraddha Patil, learned Advocate for the Petitioners, by referring to the impugned order, submits that the order issuing process is contrary to law. She further submits that the Petitioners were not heard before the summons were issued in Criminal Complaint No. 750 of 2004. She therefore requests for quashing of the impugned order.

5. Mr. Shishir Hiray, learned Chief Public Prosecutor of the Respondent No.2 – State, submits that the order issuing process is a revisable order under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C., against which a Criminal Revision Application is maintainable, at the first instance before the Sessions Court. On merits, he submits that the impugned order is passed in accordance with law and needs no interference.

6. Perused the records with the assistance of the learned Advocates for the parties.

7. A perusal of the averments in the complaint filed by the Respondent No.1 (Complainant) in Criminal Complaint No. 750 of 2004 indicates that the Petitioners issued cheque No. 684258 for Rs.70,720/- in discharge of a legally enforceable debt. The cheque was presented for payment and returned dishonoured with the endorsement “Exceeds Arrangements”. The Respondent No. 1 issued a demand notice under Section 138 (b) of the N.I. Act to the Petitioners on 12th February 2004. That, despite receipt of the demand notice, the Petitioners failed to pay the amount within the period of 15 days.

8. The Magistrate, after due consideration of the said aspect of the matter, has issued process under Section 138 of the N. I. Act, against the Petitioners in Criminal Complaint No. 750 of 2004.

9. The impugned order discloses that the Magistrate has after considering the material placed in Criminal Complaint 750 of 2004 formed an opinion that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the Petitioners. In view of the above, the impugned order cannot be faulted.

10. Ms. Shraddha Patil, learned Advocate for the Petitioners, submits that the Petitioners have paid the amount covered by the cheque to the Respondent No.1 and that the Petitioners intend to file an Application under Section 147 of the N.I. Act before the Magistrate seeking compounding of the offence. If an application as submitted by Ms. Shraddha Patil, learned Advocate for the Petitioners, is filed in Criminal Complaint No. 750 of 2004, it be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law.

11. In the wake of the above, no case is made out to entertain this Petition.

12. Interim Order stands vacated.

13. Criminal Writ Petition No.1284 of 2005 is dismissed. Rule is discharged.

14. No orders as to costs.
 
  CDJLawJournal