True Entertainment Pvt. Limited ... vs The State Of Mah. To Be Served Thr. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1010 Bom

Judgment                                   1            209.wp.608.2021 judg.odt




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

           CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.608 OF 2021

     1. True Entertainment Pvt. Limited
        Having address at 303, 3rd Floor,
        Challenger Tower 3, Thakur Village,
        Kandivali (E), Mumbai 400 101

     2. Mr. Shailendra Mandowara,
        Aged : 37 Yrs., Of Bombay adult
        Indian Inhabitant, having address at
        303, 3rd Floor, Challenger Tower 3,
        Thakur Village, Kandivali (E),
        Mumbai- 400 101                                .... PETITIONERS

                                  // VERSUS //


     1. The State of Maharashtra,
        To be served through Government
        Pleader, High Court (A.S.)

   2. Siddhant Brijkishor Singhi,
      Aged : 30 Yrs., Residing at Kamal
      Park Bldg., Shivaji Park, Dadar,
      Mumbai                            .... RESPONDENTS
__________________________________________________________
      Mr S. S. Paliwal, Advocate for the petitioners
      Mr. A. R. Chutke, APP for the State
      Mr S. O. Ahmed, Advocate for respondent No.2
__________________________________________________________


                     CORAM : G. A. SANAP, J.

DATED : 31st JANUARY, 2023 Judgment 2 209.wp.608.2021 judg.odt

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned Advocate for the parties. Perused the

record and proceedings.

2. In this petition, the order dated 25.11.2019 passed by

the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.8,

Chandrapur, issuing process under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instrument Act, 1881 is challenged.

3. It is undisputed that cheque amount was paid by the

petitioners. However, the cheque amount was not paid within 15

days from the date of the receipt of the notice. The said fact,

therefore, gave a cause of action in favour of the complainant. The

complainant, therefore, filed complaint and the process came to be

issued.

4. Learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that his

client is ready to pay Rs.10,000/-, as a compensation, over and Judgment 3 209.wp.608.2021 judg.odt

above the payment of cheque amount. It is to be noted that the

complainant is not ready for this. The complainant intends to

prosecute his complaint. It is apparent on the face of the record

that the order of issuance of process cannot be said to be illegal

order. Therefore, same cannot be quashed and set aside.

5. It is further apparent on the face of record that the

settlement of the matter between the parties would be in the

interest of both the parties. However, the complainant is not

agreeable to accept Rs.10,000/-, as a compensation. In the teeth of

the provisions of law, the learned Magistrate would be required to

decide the matter on merit. However, the fact remains that the

learned Magistrate would be required to take the above facts into

consideration while deciding the matter.

6. With this, I conclude that there is no substance in the

petition. The petition stands dismissed.

Judgment 4 209.wp.608.2021 judg.odt

7. In view of the nature of the issue involved in the matter,

the learned Magistrate is requested to dispose of the Summary

Criminal Complaint Case No. 1988 of 2019, within three months

from the date of receipt of the order.

8. Rule stands discharged.

( G. A. SANAP, J.)

Namrata

Signed By:NAMRATA YOGESH DHARKAR P. A.

High Court Nagpur Signing Date:01.02.2023 10:47