C. Vijay Kumar Reddy vs M/S. S. P. Developers And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 4124 Bom

                                                            30-ALP-496-2019.odt


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
           CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 496 OF 2019
                          (LEAVE TO APPEAL)



 Mr. C. Vijay Kumar Reddy                           .... Applicant
      Versus
 M/s. S.P. Developers and Ors.                    .... Respondents
                           ______

 Mr. Chandrashekhar Yadav i/b Hitesh Vyas,         for the
 applicant.
 Ms. Pallavi N. Dabholkar, APP for the State/Respondent.
                            ______

                               CORAM :SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.

DATE : 5th MARCH, 2021

P.C. :

1. The Ofce noting shows that the notice issued

to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is served on Respondent

No. 2. The Respondent No. 1 is proprietary frm of the

Respondent No. 2, as stated by learned Counsel for the

applicant.

2. Today, nobody appears for the Respondent Nos.

1 and 2. The State of Maharashtra is represented by

y.s.patil 1 of 3

30-ALP-496-2019.odt

learned APP Ms. Pallavi Dabholkar.

3. I have heard Shri Chandrashekhar Yadav,

learned Counsel for the applicant. Respondents faced the

prosecution for the ofence punishable under Section 138

of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The applicant who is

the frst informant had given amount of Rs. 6,00,000/啹 for

purchasing a fat. The fat was not given and instead a

cheque with added interest of Rs. 50,000/啹 was given, i.e.

the cheque of Rs. 6,50,000/啹 was given to the applicant by

the Respondents. That cheque was dishonoured and

therefore this prosecution was launched.

4. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted

that the defence taken by the applicant is contrary to the

evidence led by the accused by way of defence witness

for answering the question recorded under section 313 of

Cr.P.C. The accused has stated that the cheque was

taken by force by the present applicant. However, in his

own evidence, he has stated that the cheque was given

y.s.patil 2 of 3

30-ALP-496-2019.odt

by the accused but it was misused by the applicant and

had lodged this false prosecution.

5. Today nobody appears for the Respondents

though they served. The applicant has sufciently made

out case for allowing this application. Therefore leave is

granted under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C. to fle Appeal

against the Judgment and Order of acquittal passed by

the Additional C.J.M., Pune in S.C.C. No. 53163 of 2009.

                                   (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)




 y.s.patil                                                            3 of 3