Bombay High Court
Lotus Refineries Pvt Ltd And Anr vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 1 July, 2024
Author: Prithviraj K. Chavan
Bench: Prithviraj K. Chavan
2024:BHC-AS:25727 904-10663-2024-WPst=.doc
Digitally
signed by
UDAY UDAY
SHIVAJI
Uday S. Jagtap
SHIVAJI JAGTAP
Date:
JAGTAP 2024.07.02
12:35:55 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
+0530
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO. 10663 OF 2024
Lotus Refineries Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. .. Petitioners
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents
.....
Mr. Murtuza Najmi a/w Faizan Shaikh i/b Dilip H. Shukla for the
petitioners
Mr. A.A. Palkar, APP for the respondent - State
Mr. Yashpal Thakur a/w Mr. Nimeet Sharma and Mr. Vinit Vaidya
i/b MZM Legal LLP for the respondent no.2
.....
CORAM : PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.
RESERVED ON : 26th JUNE, 2024.
PRONOUNCED ON : 1st JULY, 2024.
P.C.
1. Rule.
2. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the
parties, petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of
admission.
3. Learned Counsel for the respondent no.2 waives notice.
1 of 6
904-10663-2024-WPst=.doc
4. Supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India along with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been
invoked by the petitioners herein, who are aggrieved with the three
orders passed by the Court's below dated 14 th February 2024, 22nd
March 2024 and 25th April 2024.
5. The respondent no.2 is the complainant, who filed a
complaint under Sections 138 r/w 134 of the Negotiable Instrument
Act for dishonour of cheque amounting to Rs.252,56,09,912/-.
6. On 5th October 2009 the respondent no.2 filed an affidavit in
lieu of evidence along with list of documents. An additional
affidavit with list of documents came to be filed on 27 th January
2022 and 17th August 2022. After having passed several orders /
directions, cross-examination of the complainant's witnesses no.1
and 2 was conducted by the petitioner between 13 th January 2023
to 30th September 2023. An application was moved by the
respondent no.2 for recalling of witness CW-1 Santosh Dhuri under
Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. The said application was moved on 3 rd
January 2024, which came to be allowed by the trial Court by
imposing certain costs in terms of order dated 14 th February 2024.
2 of 6
904-10663-2024-WPst=.doc
7. On 22nd March 2024, advocate for the petitioners moved an
application for withdrawal of the reply, which was filed on 14 th
March 2024 to an application along with list of documents filed by
the respondent no.2. The application for withdrawal of the reply
filed by the petitioner was rejected by the trial Court on 22 nd March
2024. However, the trial Court exhibited certain documents
namely; the ledger account of the complainant's company at
Exhibit- 94 and the Certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence
Act as Exhibit-95.
8. Meanwhile, the said order was challenged before this Court
by the petitioners by way of Writ Petition No.434 of 2024 on 30 th
March 2024.
9. This Court after hearing the respective parties at length
disposed of the aforesaid writ petition on 24 th April 2024 inter alia
granting permission to the respondent no.2 to file an application
along with list of documents with permission to produce the
additional documents on record before the trial Court. This Court,
inter alia, directed the trial Court to decide the same on its own
merits in accordance with law, expeditiously.
3 of 6
904-10663-2024-WPst=.doc
10. In view of the said directions, the respondent no.2 filed an
application for production of documents along with additional list
of documents, which came to be allowed by the trial Court. The
matter was thereafter adjourned for filing objection to the list of
documents.
11. I heard Mr. Najmi, learned Counsel for the petitioner. The
only grievance made by the learned Counsel is that the trial Court
passed order/s without application of mind and without considering
the directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition No.434 of 2024.
He contends that Exhibit-54 and Exhibit-55 were never admitted
by the petitioner. Various grievances were made by the learned
Counsel as regards the cross-examination of respondent no.2 as
well as recalling of witnesses etc.
12. From the perusal of the record and the orders impugned, it is
quite apparent that the petition is filed only to crimp and drag the
proceedings sans any substance. This Court can not exercise its
power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India to interfere with the orders of the inferior Courts at the drop
of a hat. It is also equally true that under Article 227 of the
4 of 6
904-10663-2024-WPst=.doc
Constitution of India, this Court is not sitting in appeal over the
orders impugned, which is exactly sought to be achieved by the
petitioner, who ought to have co-operated with the trial Court in
concluding the case which is in fact, needs to be tried summarily.
There is absolutely no question of even exercising the powers under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in view of catena of judgments in that
regard.
13. Supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India can be exercised only for keeping the
subordinate Courts "within the bounds of their authority". It is not
the contention of the petitioner that learned Magistrate has
exceeded his jurisdiction in passing the impugned orders. He even
has failed to demonstrate as to how grave injustice or gross failure
of justice has occurred while passing the impugned orders.
14. Consequently, the petition is devoid of merits and hence,
stands dismissed with costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lacs
sonly) to be paid to the respondent no.2 within four weeks.
15. As the trial Court has already been directed by this Court to
proceed with the matter in accordance with the law as expeditiously
5 of 6
904-10663-2024-WPst=.doc
as possible, it is needless to reiterate the same.
16. The Writ Petition stands dismissed in the aforesaid terms.
17. Rule is discharged.
(PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.)
6 of 6
