Bombay High Court
M/S Rukhmini Solvex Pvt. Ltd. ... vs Satish S/O Gajanand Agrawal And ... on 13 July, 2017
Bench: V.M. Deshpande
appa395.15 1
20IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) NO.395 OF 2015
M/s Rukhmini Solvex Private Limited,
A Company incorporated under the
Provisions of Indian Companies Act,1956
having its registered office at
Shankar Bhavan Main Road,
Gokndia,District-Bhandara(M.S.)
through its Director Gopaldas S/o Shankarlal
Agrawal, aged about 62 years,
Occupation-Business, resident of
Shankar Bhavan,Main Road,
Gokndia,District-Bhandara(M.S.)
[now District-Gokndia) ..... APPLICANT
...V E R S U S...
1) Satish S/o Gajanand Agrawal,
Aged Major,Occupation-Business,
Vedika Garments, in front of
Himlalay Compllex, Akash Ganga,
Supela Bhilai, at and post Chattisgarh
(original accused no.3 as in complaint]
2) Gajanand & Company through its
Proprietor Satish S/o Gajanand Agrawal,
Gawlipura,District Durg,
Post Durg, Chattisgarh[original
accused no.5 as in complaint]
3) State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station officer,
Police Station Gondia City,
District-Gondia. ...NON-APPLICANTS
::: Uploaded on - 15/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/07/2017 00:21:53 :::
appa395.15 2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri B.M.Kharkate, Advocate for applicant.
Shri M.R.Joharapurkar, Advocate for respondent no.1
Shri N.B.Jawade,A.P.P. for State
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- V. M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATED :- JULY 13,2017
ORAL JUDGMENT
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by consent of learned counsel for the parties.
2. Heard learned counsel Shri B.M.Kharkate for applicant
and learned counsel Shri M.R.Joharapurkar, for respondent no.1.
3. Present applicant is the complainant who filed
proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in
the Court of learned J.M.F.C.(2nd Court)Gondia. The said case was
registered as Criminal Complaint No.1041/1997. The said was
dismissed on 9/3/2012 for want of prosecution and on the ground
that case is pending since 1997 and when the matter was called
complainant and his counsel were absent.
4. The impugned order itself reflects that the case was fixed
for evidence from 23/1/2012 and the matter was dismissed on
9/3/2012. If that is so, the pendency of the matter since 1997 looses
its relevance and importance. In that view of the matter the learned
Magistrate ought to have given one more chance to the complainant
to prove its case. Hence, by exercising my inherent power under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. I allow the present application and thereby
set aside the order dated 9/3/2012 passed by learned J.M.F.C.(Court
No.2),Gondia, in Criminal Complaint No.1041/1997. The Criminal
complaint No.1041/1997 is restored to file.
5. Both parties are directed to appear before learned
J.M.F.C.(Court No.2),Gondia on 27/7/2017 so that the learned
Magistrate need not issue fresh notice to either of the parties.
Looking to the fact that complaint is pending since 1997 ,learned
Magistrate is directed to dispose of criminal complaint as early as
possible within a period of one year from the date of appearance.
With this the application is allowed.
Rule is made absolute,with no order as to costs.
JUDGE
kitey
