Kajal Anantwar W/O Rahul Anantwar vs Ashwin Paigwar S/O Maganlal ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 4587 Bom

 apl.173.16                                      1        

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

              CRIMINAL  APPLICATION  NO. 173  OF  2016

  
 Kajal W/o Rahul Anantwar,
 Aged about 35  years,
 Occupation-housewife, 
 R/o BS-4,Pranav Apartments, 
 Vyankatesh Nagar, Khamla,
 Nagpur.440025                                                .....  APPLICANT

       ...V E R S U S...

  
 Ashwin S/o Paganlal Pagiwar,
 Aged about 47 years,
 Occupation-Service,
 R/o 26-D, Parvati Apartments,
 Ambazari layout, Nagpur.                             ...RESPONDENT
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Shri G.L.Bajaj,  Advocate for the   applicant.
 Shri A.R.Kalariya,Advocate for respondent. 
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               CORAM:- V. M. DESHPANDE, J.

DATED :- JULY 17,2017

ORAL JUDGMENT

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally

by consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2. On 19/7/2014, learned 27th J.M.F.C.Nagpur issued

process against the present applicant for the offence punishable

under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

3. The said order was questioned by the present applicant

by filing the revision. It was Criminal Revision No.69/2015 in the

Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-8,Nagpur. The learned

Additional Sessions Judge-8,Nagpur rejected the revision.

4. The only contention that is raised by learned counsel

for the applicant before this Court is that when the process was

issued at that time there was no document available before

learned J.M.F.C. from the banker of the present applicant. He

submits that in fact he has already issued communication to his

banker to stop the payment since his cheques were stolen away

and those cheques should not be honoured.

5. It is not in dispute that at the time of issuance of

process the documents from the bankers of the complainant were

before the learned Magistrate and the memo of banker of the

complainant shows that cheque was not honoured due to

'insufficient funds'.

6. The submission of learned counsel for applicant in my

view are in the nature of his defence which can be looked into

only during the course of time. Hence, there is no error committed

by the learned Magistrate or by learned revisional Court. Hence,

the present application is dismissed.

Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.

JUDGE

kitey