Bombay High Court
Maitreya V. Doshi vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 22 February, 2021
Bench: A.S. Gadkari
ssm 1 2-wp3568.16.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3568 OF 2016
Maitreya V. Doshi ....Petitioner.
Vs.
The State Of Maharashtra & Anr. ....Respondents.
Mr. Ankit Lohia and Gunjan Mangla a/w Manas Kotak i/by Desai & Diwanji
for the Petitioner.
Mr. Amit Palkar, APP for the Respondent No.1-State.
CORAM : A. S. GADKARI, J.
DATE : 22nd FEBRUARY, 2021.
P.C.:-
By the present Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, the Petitioner has impugned, Judgment and Order dated 9 th August,
2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai in Criminal
Revision Application No.462 of 2015, dismissing the said Revision and
confirming Order dated 26th March, 2015, passed by Metropolitan
Magistrate, 40th Court, Girgaon, Mumbai below Exh-105 in C.C No.
399/SS/2014.
2 Heard Mr. Ankit Lohia, learned counsel for the Petitioner and
Mr. Palkar, learned APP for the Respondent No.1-State. Respondent No.2 is
absent, though duly served.
3 The Petitioner is an accused in Criminal Case No.399 of 2014
ssm 2 2-wp3568.16.doc
instituted by the Respondent No.2 for committing an offence under the
provisions of Companies Act.
Dr. T. Pandian, Registrar of Companies, Maharashtra State,
Mumbai by its letter dated 27th September, 2013 informed Mr. J.R. Solanki,
Additional P.P. appearing before the Trial Court in the said Complaint, for
taking necessary action in the matter, as his office had received instructions
from its Ministry to withdraw the said Complaint. By a reminder letter
dated 17th December, 2013, Dr. T. Pandian, Registrar of Companies,
Maharashtra State, Mumbai again requested the concerned Additional P.P.
appearing before the Trial Court to withdraw the said Complaint. Along
with the said letter, an Application for withdrawal of Complaint was also
forwarded to the concerned Additional P. P..
4 The concerned Additional P. P. appearing before the Trial Court
did not pursue the said Applications dated 27 th September, 2013 and 17th
December, 2013 before the Trial Court. The Petitioner therefore, filed an
Application under Section 257 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for
short, "the Cr.P.C.") below Exh-105 for withdrawal of the Complaint before
the Trial Court. Letter dated 16th December, 2013, duly signed by Mr.
Manoj Bang, Assistant Registrar of Companies, Maharashtra Mumbai was
annexed to the said Application for withdrawal of Complaint below Exh-
105.
5 The Trial Court, by its Order dated 26 th March, 2015 rejected
ssm 3 2-wp3568.16.doc
the said Application on the ground that, it is the prerogative of the
Complainant to withdraw the Complaint and the Petitioner has no authority
to do so. The Criminal Revision Application No. 462 of 2015 preferred by
the Petitioner has been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Mumbai by its Judgment and Order dated 9 th August, 2016, predominantly
on the same ground.
6 Mr. Lohia, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that, as
the concerned Additional P.P. did not file Application for withdrawal of the
said Complaint, the Petitioner was constrained to file the same below Exh-
105. He submitted that, despite clear directions issued by the Ministry in
that behalf, the learned Additional P. P. appearing before the Trial Court is
obliging the Respondent No.2 and it was the precise reason, the Petitioner
had to file the said Application below Ex-105.
7 Section 257 of the Cr.P.C., deals with withdrawal of Complaint.
It reads as under:-
257. Withdrawal of complaint. - If a complainant, at any time
before a final order is passed in any case under this
Chapter, satisfies the Magistrate that there are sufficient
grounds for permitting him to withdraw his complaint
against the accused, or if there be more than one
accused, against all or any of them, the Magistrate may
permit him to withdraw the same, and shall thereupon
acquit the accused against whom the complaint is so
withdrawn."
A plain reading of Section 257 of the Cr.P.C. would clearly
indicate that, a Complaint can be withdrawn by the Complainant at any
ssm 4 2-wp3568.16.doc
time before a final order is passed in any case under the said Chapter. In
view thereof, it is further clear that the Accused does not have any locus-
standi to file an Application for withdrawal of the Complaint.
8 The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the
Petitioner that, as the concerned Public Prosecutor appearing for the
Complainant before the Trial Court is not doing the needful and the
Petitioner-accused was constrained to file an Application for withdrawal of
Complaint, therefore cannot be accepted and is accordingly rejected.
9 After perusing the impugned Orders dated 26th March, 2015
passed by the Trial Court below Exh-105 in C.C No. 399/SS/2014 and
dated 9th August, 2016 passed by the Revisional Court in Criminal Revision
Application No.462 of 2015, this Court is of the opinion that, the Trial
Court, as well as, the Revisional Court have not committed any error while
passing the impugned Orders.
Petition being devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.
Ad-interim relief granted earlier to remain enforce for four
weeks from today.
11 It is made clear that, dismissal of the present Writ Petition will
not preclude the Assistant Registrar of Companies, Maharashtra, Mumbai
from filing a fresh Application before the Trial Court, for withdrawal of said
Complaint by following necessary procedure.
(A.S. GADKARI, J.)
Sanjiv S.
Digitally signed by
Sanjiv S. Mashalkar 4/4
Mashalkar Date: 2021.03.03
17:58:47 +0530
