Bombay High Court
Ms Lokshahi Publication Pvt Ltd Thr Shri ... vs Ms Mahalakshmi Associates, Thr Shri ... on 18 November, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:12301
Judgment Cr.APPA-550-2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION [APPA] NO. 550 OF 2025
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL [STAMP] NO. 5280 OF 2025
...
M/s. Lokshahi Publication Pvt. Ltd.,
Having its registered office at Third Floor,
Thaper Enclave-II, 148,
University Library Road, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur,
Through its authorized signatory,
Shri. Niraj S. Dubey,
Age- 50 years, Occupation-Service.
... APPELLANT
--VERSUS--
M/s. Mahalakshmi Associates,
Through its proprietor,
Shri. Prashant Prabhakarrao Vighneshwar,
Age- Adult, Occupation- Business,
R/o Near Sapna Talkies Road,
Main Road, Chandrapur @ Plot No. F/1,
Bakul Apartmment, Datala Road,
Ramnagar, Chandrapur-442 401.
... RESPONDENT
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.APPA-550-2025
2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. P.B. Patil, Advocate for the Appellant.
None for the Respondent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J.
DATE : NOVEMBER 18, 2025.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. None for
the Respondent.
2. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the appellant,
leave is granted to prefer the appeal. Office is directed to
register the appeal.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.______2025:
3. Admit. The appeal is taken up for final hearing.
4. The present Appeal raises an exception to the order
dated 02/01/2025 passed below Exh.1, by the learned 10th
Joint Civil Judge Senior Division and Additional Chief Judicial
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.APPA-550-2025
Magistrate, Nagpur, in Summary Criminal Case No.7868/2019,
wherein, the learned Magistrate was pleased to dismiss the
complaint for want of prosecution, resulting into acquittal of
the accused.
5. Brief facts of the case are that:
The appellant is a company incorporated under the
Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of news
and media services. It publishes a Marathi newspaper titled
Daily Lokshahi Wartha, which has circulation in the Vidarbha
region and certain other parts of Maharashtra. The Managing
Director of the appellant company had authorised Shri Niraj S.
Dubey to initiate the present proceedings. The respondent is the
sole proprietor of M/s Mahalakshmi Associates, a firm engaged
in advertisement related activities. Under the Service
Agreement dated 01/04/2017, the respondent was responsible
for collecting advertisements intended for publication in the
appellant's newspaper. Under the terms of the agreement, the
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.APPA-550-2025
respondent was required to remit the advertisement amounts
collected from various customers. However, an amount of Rs.
34,13,330/- remained unpaid from the respondent. To
discharge this liability, the respondent issued cheque No. 16533
dated 30/07/2018 for Rs. 34,13,330/-, drawn on Bank of India,
Bamni Branch, Chandrapur. When presented by the appellant
through its banker, the cheque was dishonoured on
02/08/2018 with the remark "Funds Insufficient."
6. The appellant thereafter issued a statutory notice
dated 29/08/2018 calling upon the respondent to make
payment of the cheque amount within the prescribed period.
The notice was served on 01/09/2018, but no payment was
made. The appellant then instituted Summary Criminal Case
No. 7868/2019 before the Trial Court under the provisions of
the Negotiable Instruments Act. On 02/01/2025, the appellant
and its counsel were absent before the Trial Court. The Trial
Court, noting their absence, proceeded to acquit the respondent
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.APPA-550-2025
for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act. The present proceedings have been filed challenging the
said order of acquittal.
7. From the record, it appears that the learned Trial
Court dismissed the complaint and acquitted the respondent on
the ground of non-appearance of the appellant and its counsel.
The appellant contended that such dismissal caused prejudice,
as the absence was not deliberate but due to confusion arising
from multiple transfers of the case between different courts,
which resulted in difficulty in keeping track of hearing dates. It
further appears that the learned Trial Court did not issue notice
to the appellant before dismissing the complaint, nor was the
matter kept for passing the dismissal order on a subsequent
date. The complaint was dismissed on the same day it was fixed
for evidence, without providing an opportunity to present
submissions. The record indicates that the cheque in question
involves a substantial amount, and the appellant had taken
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.APPA-550-2025
steps to comply with procedural requirements, including
applications for adjournments and payment of costs, which
could not be effected due to frequent transfers. In view of these
factors, the learned Trial Court did not follow the procedure
required to ensure a fair opportunity to the appellant, resulting
in a dismissal that appears to be inconsistent with the principles
of natural justice.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the
judgment of this Court in the case of Shri Shaikh Akbar Talab
VS Shri A.G. Pushpakaran & Another, 2018 ALL MR (Cri) 1208,
and referred to the observations made in Paragraph No.14,
which are as follows:
"14. In above referred case cited (supra) the complaint
was dismissed under Section 256 of CrPC by the learned
Magistrate due to absence of the complainant. It is held that
principles of natural justice are required to be followed by
giving an opportunity to the complainant to prosecute the
complaint on merits as well as an opportunity is to be given
to the accused to contest the complaint on merits. Therefore,
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.APPA-550-2025
the matters were restored by quashing and setting aside
the impugned orders."
9. Upon perusal of the record and in light of the law
laid down by this Court in the case of Shri Shaikh Akbar Talab
(supra), I am of the considered view that the Learned Trial
Court ought not to have dismissed the complaint for want of
prosecution, nor should have acquitted the accused for the
offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881.
10. From the record, it appears that the appellant had
been regularly attending the proceedings, with the evidence
scheduled on 15/01/2024 before the learned 11 th Joint Civil
Judge Senior Division and ACJM, Nagpur. The matter was
adjourned to 26/03/2024 for evidence before the learned 9 th
Joint Civil Judge Senior Division and ACJM, Nagpur. However,
on 25/06/2024, the case was transferred to the learned 11th
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.APPA-550-2025
Joint Civil Judge Senior Division and ACJM, Nagpur for further
proceedings, and another date was fixed for 05/08/2024.
Subsequently, on 12/09/2024, the matter was again
transferred to the learned 10th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division
and ACJM, Nagpur. The case was further adjourned to
06/12/2024, and the evidence was once again scheduled. On
02/01/2025, the learned 10th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division
and ACJM, Nagpur disposed of the matter.
It is evident that due to the frequent transfers of the
case between different courts, the appellant and its counsel
faced challenge in maintaining track of the proceedings. The
appellant submits that this may have contributed to the absence
on certain hearing dates, despite consistent attendance on prior
occasions. In light of these circumstances, it was incumbent
upon the learned Trial Court to adopt a more cautious approach
before dismissing the complaint. The absence on a single date
should not have led to an automatic dismissal, especially given
the history of regular attendance and the frequent transfers of
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.APPA-550-2025
the case.
11. From the record, it appears that the complaint was
dismissed despite the appellant's regular attendance on earlier
dates. Considering the frequent transfers of the case among
11th, 9th, and 10th Joint Civil Judges Senior Division and ACJM,
Nagpur, absence on a solitary date cannot be treated as
sufficient ground for dismissal. The learned Trial Court ought to
have provided an opportunity for the appellant to be heard
before dismissing the complaint, as such dismissal would
frustrate the object of Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act.
12. Considering the attending circumstances appearing
on record, including the appellant's regular appearances, the
frequent transfers of the case among 11 th, 9th, and 10th Joint
Civil Judges Senior Division and ACJM, Nagpur, and the
adjournments granted for procedural compliance, it would be
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.APPA-550-2025
just and proper to afford a reasonable opportunity to the
appellant to pursue his cause on merits. The observations of
this Court in the case of Shri Shaikh Akbar Talab (supra) are
relevant, wherein it was held that the principles of natural
justice are required to be followed by giving an opportunity to
the complainant to prosecute the complaint on merits and to
the accused to contest it. The learned Trial Court, by dismissing
the complaint on a solitary absence without fixing a separate
date for the dismissal order, adopted a harsh and technical
approach, thereby frustrating the object of Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act and procedural safeguards. For the
reasons stated above, I deem it appropriate to allow the appeal.
Hence, the following order:-
ORDER
(i) The Appeal is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order passed below Exh.-1
by the learned 10th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.APPA-550-2025
and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur, in
Summary Criminal Case No.7868/2019, dated
02/01/2025, dismissing the said complaint in
default under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure and consequently acquitting the accused
for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, is quashed and set
aside.
(iii) Summary Criminal Case No.7868/2019,
stands restored to file at its original stage and the
matter is remanded back to the learned Trial Court
to decide the same afresh, on its own merits.
(iv) The parties are directed to remain
present before the Learned Trial Court on
17/12/2025.
(v) The appellant shall proceed with the
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.APPA-550-2025
matter without seeking any adjournment and shall
co-operate with the Trial Court. The Trial Court
may grant adjournment in exceptional
circumstances.
(vi) The above order is subject to payment of
costs of Rs.10,000/-. The cost shall be deposited by
the appellant in the Trial Court. The said cost shall
be paid to the respondent.
(vii) The appeal is disposed of, accordingly.
[ M. M. NERLIKAR, J ]
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
