Bombay High Court
Alpesh Raghavji Patel vs Kunal Dinesh Ishrani on 17 August, 2023
Bench: S. V. Kotwal
1 24.wp-2813-23
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2813 OF 2023
[Alpesh Vs. Vinod]
Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders.
Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's
orders or directions and
Registrar's orders
Mr. Mahendra Shingade, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. A.R. Patil, APP for the Respondent-State.
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 17th AUGUST, 2023
P.C.:
1. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the
order dated 7.6.2023 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 6 th
Court, Mazagaon, Mumbai below Exhibit-83 in Case
No.448/SS/2017. The Respondent No.1 was the original
complainant. The complaint is filed against M/s. Marvelo
India, which was a partnership firm. The complaint was filed
against the Petitioner as one of the Partners of the said firm.
However, the contention of the Petitioner is that he was never a
Partner of the said firm. The trial proceeded. The evidence of
the complainant as well as for the accused was led. The
statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C. and even the final arguments of both the parties were
heard. At that belated stage, an application was moved by the
Respondent No.1-original complainant under Section 254(2) of
Cr.P.C. for summoning and examining the Income Tax Officer
to produce income tax returns of the said partnership firm to
prove that the Petitioner was a Partner of the said firm. This
application was allowed by the impugned order.
1/2
::: Uploaded on - 19/08/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2023 22:51:53 :::
2 24.wp-2813-23
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the
application preferred by the complainant itself mentions that
right from the beginning it was stand of the Petitioner that he
was not a partner of the said firm. Therefore, the complainant
had every opportunity to lead evidence to show that the
Petitioner was a Partner of the said firm. Inspite of that, the
complainant waited till the final arguments were over and then
filed this application. Learned trial Judge did not give any
reasons for entertaining this application at such a belated stage
after the matter was closed for the final judgment.
3. Considering these submissions, it is necessary to hear
the other side. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has made out
a case for grant of ad-interim relief. Hence, the following
order :
:: O R D E R ::
i. Issue notice to the Respondent No.1, returnable on
19.10.2023.
ii. Till that date, there shall be ad-interim relief in terms of
prayer clause (c).
iii. Stand over to 19.10.2023.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
Deshmane (PS)
