BOMBAY HIGH COURT
S.S. Shinde, J.
Prakash Nanji Thakkar —Petitioner
versus
State of Maharashtra and Anr. —Respondents
Criminal Writ Petition No.3362 of 2019 along with Criminal Writ Petition No.3363 of 2019 along with Criminal Writ Petition No.3364 of 2019 along with Criminal Writ Petition No.3365 of 2019 along with Criminal Writ Petition No.3366 of 2019
Decided on 7.8.2019
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Exercise of inherent jurisdiction – Jurisdiction under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, can be exercised at any stage of proceedings – However, it will depend upon facts and circumstances of each case – If documents of impeachable character or uncontroverted are placed on record, in a given case, High Court may endeavour to invoke jurisdiction under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, irrespective of stage of proceedings before trial Court. (Para 14)
(B) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Dishonour of cheques – Direction to pay interim compensation – Whether there was any agreement between Petitioner/Accused and Respondent No.2/complainant would be a matter for appreciation of contentions of parties by trial Court – It would depend upon appreciation of evidence and documents filed in Trial Court – In a given case there may be oral agreement or written agreement – In facts of the case, complaint has been filed by Respondent No.2/complainant against her husband i.e. Petitioner and what transpired between them would be difficult to visualized unless averments made in complaint and documents placed on record are tested before Trial Court – Petitions rejected – All contentions raised on merits kept open for being agitated before Trial Court. (Paras 13 and 15)
Result: Petitions rejected.
JUDGMENT (COMMON ORAL)
S.S. Shinde, J.—The above group of five Petitions has been filed by the Petitioner, original accused, challenging the order dated 06/06/2019 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 20th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai. By the said order the Trial Court directed the Petitioner to pay interim compensation to the complainant which is 20% of the cheque amount within 60 days from the date of the said order.
2. It appears that the 5 cheques, alleged to have been issued by the Petitioner in favour of the contesting Respondent, have got dishonoured on being presented in Bank of Respondent No.2, therefore, 5 complainants have been filed by Respondent No.2 against the Petitioner in the Trial Court and, the Trial Court has passed five separate orders dated 06/06/2019. Hence these five Petitions.
3. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, Writ Petition No.3362 of 2019 is treated as a lead matter.
4. Rule, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties made returnable and heard forthwith.
5. The facts giving rise to filing of the above Petition in a nutshell can be stated thus:
The Petitioner herein is the husband of Respondent No.2 herein who is original complainant. The Petitioner got married to Respondent No.2 on 27/04/2012. The Petitioner was earlier married to one Mrs. Heena Prakash Thakkar who expired on 16/01/2012 and after the death of his first wife, he got married to Respondent No.2. It is the case of the complainant that after 6 months of the marriage, Respondent No.2 came to know about her husband i.e. the Petitioner herein receiving untimely calls, text and whatsapp message from his office employee Deepali to which Respondent No.2 objected. When Respondent No.2 objected, the Petitioner started quarreling with her and declared that he is having intimate relations with the said Deepali. It is the case of Respondent No.2 that whenever she demanded money from the Petitioner for grocery and household expenses, he refused to give. It is the case of Respondent No.2 – complainant that the Petitioner pressurized for signing certain papers by stating that those papers were the applications for dissolving marriage. It is her case that the Petitioner was ill treating her and giving harassment. It is the case of Respondent No.2 that ultimately Petitioner insisted her that if she signs a Petition for divorce by mutual consent, then the Petitioner would arrange a residential accommodation of 2BHK for complainant at Mulund and pay her a lump-sum alimony of Rs.1,30,00,000/for dissolving their marriage. The Petitioner then gave a sum of Rs.80,00,000/- as a part alimony and promised to arrange a flat in her name and to pay further balance amount by post dated cheques in her name. Accordingly the Petitioner issued 25 cheques of Rs.2,00,000/- each. Out of the said cheques, Respondent No.2, on instructions of Petitioner, deposited five cheques in her Axis Bank ltd. Mazgaon Branch, Mumbai. It is the case of Respondent No.2 complainant that the said five cheques got dishonoured with remark “account closed”. The complainant sent a demand notice dated 13/02/2019 to the Petitioner, which has been replied by the Petitioner. Since the amount of cheques was not released, Respondent No.2-complainant filed the present complaints against the Petitioner.
6. After filing the complaint, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate recorded the verification statement of the original complaint and issued process/summons against the Petitioner/accused by order dated 08/04/2019.
7. It is the case of the Petitioner that way back in March 2018, the Petitioner sent a notice under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act to Respondent No.2 Complainant thereby requesting her to return to her matrimonial home and further seeking restitution of conjugal rights. It is stated in the said notice that the complainant has left the Petitioner in the month of December 2016 after inducing the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.80,00,000/- in the month
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.