Srinath Sridharan vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 6271 Bom

   Gokhale                             1 of 3                            25-wp-2176-23


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

               CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2176 OF 2023

 Srinath Sridharan                                               ..Petitioner
       Versus
 State of Maharashtra & Anr.                                     ..Respondents

                               __________
 Mr. Ishan Jani for Petitioner.
 Mr. M. G. Patil, APP for State/Respondent No.1.
                               __________

                               CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
                               DATE : 3 JULY 2023
 PC :

 1.            The Petitioner herein has challenged the order dated

 04/10/2019 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 28th Court,

 Esplanade, Mumbai, issuing process against him and others under

 section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The

 Petitioner had challenged that order before the Additional Sessions

 Judge, Mumbai. That revision application was rejected and

 thereafter the petitioner has filed this petition.


 2.            Learned counsel for the Petitioner invited my attention

 to the statutory notice issued by the complainant which is annexed

 at page No.96 of this petition in which the Petitioner is described




::: Uploaded on - 04/07/2023                    ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2023 22:06:41 :::
                                           2 of 3                            25-wp-2176-23


 as 'Additional (Non-Executive) Director'. In spite of having this

 knowledge, the complainant had mentioned the Petitioner as

 'Additional Director' and has not deliberately referred to him as

 'Non-Executive Director'. He further submitted that, even in the

 entire memo of the complaint, no specific role is attributed to the

 petitioner showing as to how he was in charge of and responsible

 for day to day affairs of the accused company. He submitted that,

 this very issue is considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

 case of Sunita Palita and others Versus Panchami Stone Quarry 1.

 The ratio of this Judgment is applicable in favour of the present

 petition.


 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.


 4.            Hence, the following order:


                                              ORDER

i) Issue Notice to the Respondents, returnable on 04/09/2023.

 1    (2022) 10 Supreme Court Cases 152





                                               3 of 3                            25-wp-2176-23

ii) Stand over to 04/09/2023.

iii) Till then, there shall be ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b); in respect of the present petitioner alone.

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)