Priju Thomas Arakudiyil vs Godavari Properties (J V) Through ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5445 Bom

                                     1/3                  31-APL-1438-&-1431-22.odt

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                     CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1438 OF 2022

                                           WITH

                     CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1431 OF 2022

    Priju Thomas Arakudiyil                                 .... Applicant

                     versus

    Godavari Properties (J. V.) & Anr.                      .... Respondents
                                    .......

    •       Mr. Hasan Sayed a/w Rafique A. Shaikh, Advocate for Applicant.
    •       Mr. A. R. Patil, APP for the State/Respondent.

                                   CORAM       : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
                                   DATE        : 12th JUNE, 2023

    P.C. :


    1.               The      Petitioner   has challenged      the      order      dated

         17/02/2021 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court

         No.7, Nashik, in the trial u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments

         Act. The Petitioner is the original accused No.4. The subject

         matter of the complaint is dishonour of the cheque for

         Rs.23,29,497/- issued by the accused No.1/company in favour

         of the Respondent No.1 drawn on HDFC Bank, Thane branch.
Nesarikar




   ::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2023                     ::: Downloaded on - 16/06/2023 23:34:39 :::
                                2/3                 31-APL-1438-&-1431-22.odt




 2.               Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the

      Petitioner is residing outside the jurisdiction of the Trial Court.

      Therefore enquiry u/s 202 of Cr.P.C. was mandatory. He further

      submitted that the Applicant was neither a signatory to the

      cheque nor to the concerned agreement. There is only vague and

      general averment against the Applicant that the Applicant was

      looking after the affairs of the company. He submitted that to

      rope in the Applicant as an accused with the aid of section 138

      r/w section 141 of N.I. Act, this avernent is not sufficient. He

      relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

      of Sunita Palita & Others, Vs. M/s. Panchami Stone Quarry, in

      SLP (Cri.) 10396 of 2019 dated 01/08/2022 to contend that this

      averment is not sufficient.



 3.               Considering this statement, it is necessary to issue

      notice to the Respondents. The Petitioner has made out a case

      for grant of ad-interim relief.




::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2023                 ::: Downloaded on - 16/06/2023 23:34:39 :::
                                       3/3                   31-APL-1438-&-1431-22.odt

 4.               Hence, the following order :



                                            ORDER

(i) Issue notice to the Respondents returnable on 26/07/2023.

(ii) There shall be ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b) till the next date.

(iii) Stand over to 26/07/2023.

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)