Bombay High Court
M/S Astarc Agro And Foods Pvt. Ltd. ... vs Bhimrao Shirbhate on 20 September, 2017
Bench: V.M. Deshpande
Judgment
apl173.15 29
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.173 OF 2015
M/s. Astarc Agro and Foods
Pvt. Ltd.,
C-15, M.I.D.C., Gopal Nagar,
Amravati, Through its
Assistant General Manager,
Deepak Rambhau Fuke. ..... Applicant.
:: VERSUS ::
Bhimrao Shirbhate
Aged - Major, Occupation Business,
Proprietor of Shirbhate Milk Center,
R/o Shirbhate Lay-out,
Sahakar Nagar,
Near Rampuri Camp, Amravati. ..... Non-applicant.
================================================================
Shri K.P. Mahalle, Counsel for the applicant.
Shri A.K. Dhabarde, Counsel for the non-applicant.
================================================================
CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 20, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard
.....2/-
::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2017 02:01:31 :::
Judgment
apl173.15 29
2
finally by consent of learned counsel Shri K.P. Mahalle for the
applicant and learned counsel Shri A.K. Dhabarde for the non-
applicant.
2. Learned counsel Shri A.K. Dhabarde for the non-
applicant opposes the application vehemently. He submits
that if the Court allows the application, suitable costs should
be awarded.
3. Order under challenge is dated 3.7.2012 in
Summary Criminal Case No.766 of 2011 by which the said
complaint case was disposed of by learned Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Court No.11, Amravati for want of prosecution.
4. The present applicant is the complainant who filed
a complaint against the non-applicant since the cheque issued
in favour of the applicant by him stood dishonoured by his
banker.
.....3/-
::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2017 02:01:31 :::
Judgment
apl173.15 29
3
5. According to contention of learned counsel Shri
K.P. Mahalle for the applicant, the applicant, which is a
company, authorized one Mangesh Deshmukh to represent
the applicant company in the Court of learned Magistrate.
However, said Mangesh Deshmukh was terminated from
services by order dated 29.10.2011. According to learned
counsel for the applicant, after his termination, due to
inadvertence, the complainant could not attend the case
before learned Judge of the Court below.
6. It is brought to my notice by learned counsel Shri
K.P. Mahalle for the applicant order passed by this Court
(Coram : A.B. Chaudhari, J.) on 5.2.2016 in Criminal
Application (APL) No.172 of 2015. In the said case also, the
present applicant was the complainant and the complaint
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was
filed against one Anil Bhojraj Sahu. The said complaint was
.....4/-
::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2017 02:01:31 :::
Judgment
apl173.15 29
4
also dismissed for want of prosecution by learned Magistrate.
The reasons, as submitted before this Court in the present
application, are identical to the reasons those were submitted
before this Court in Criminal Application (APL) No.172 of
2015.
7. Said Criminal Application (APL) No.172 of 2015
was allowed by this Court.
8. Looking to the controversy involved, this Court is
of the view that the present application can also be allowed
and the criminal complaint needs to be restored. Hence, I
pass the following order:
ORDER
i) Subject to complainant deposits payment of costs
of Rs.5,000/- before learned Magistrate within a
period of two weeks from today, the criminal
.....5/-
Judgment
apl173.15 29
application is allowed.
ii) Order passed below Exhibit-1 by learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.11,
Amravati, in Summary Criminal Case No.766 of
2011 dated 3.7.2012 is hereby quashed and set
aside.
iii) If the said payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- are
deposited, Summary Criminal Case No.766 of 2011
stands restored to the file of learned Magistrate.
The Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.
JUDGE
!! BRW !!
...../-
