The main legal point established in the judgment is that the failure to disclose the full history of a transaction and resultant litigations when filing a complaint in a criminal court can mislead the court and result in hardship and expenditure for the accused. Additionally, the court emphasized the importance of complying with court orders and the consequences of presenting cheques for encashment in violation of such orders.

JUDGMENT - CHITRE J.G., J.:---The petitioner is hereby taking exception to the order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 37th Court, Mumbai, dated 24-3-1999, whereby the said Court took cognizance of a complaint filed by respondent No. 2 and issued process against the petitioner in context with provisions of section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as Act for convenience).

2. The respondent No. 2 filed a complaint by alleging that the petitioner issued following cheques to him and when they were presented for encashment, were dishonoured.

1. Cheque No. 58534, dated 15-3-1998 for Rs. 17,005/-.

2. Cheque No. 58535, dated 15-4-1998 for Rs. 17,005/-.

3. Cheque No. 58536, dated 15-5-1998 for Rs. 17,005/-.

4. Cheque No. 58537, dated 15-6-1998 for Rs. 17,005/-.

5. Cheque No. 58538, dated 15-7-1998 for Rs. 17,005/-.

The respondent No. 2 complained, that by dishonouring of the cheques the petitioner committed the offence punishable under section 138 of the Act. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the said complaint and by the impugned order issued the process against the petitioner and that is the subject-matter of challenge in this writ petition.

3. Some facts need to be quoted for the purpose of unfolding the crux of the controversy. There was an agreement between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 on 6-10-1998 in respect of motor vehicle, Maruti Esteem Bearing No. MP-09 M-5573. By the said agreement, respondent No. 2 agreed to let on hire the said vehicle to the petitioner on monthly hire charges of Rs. 17,005/-. The petitioner happens to be the proprietor of one M/s. Kishore Foot Wear, Milkano Shoes. In the year 1986-1987, the Government of Maharashtra had floated a scheme specifically for the upliftment of cobblers. By virtue of the said scheme the cobblers were required to form a society and each individual cobblers were entitled to a loan of Rs. 25,000/-. Number of cobblers came together and formed association and took the loan facilities under the said scheme. It was alleged that the money so taken was used for some other purposes and therefore, a crime bearing C.R. No. 95 of 1996 came to be registered by GBCB CID, Mumbai and pursuant to that, the petitioner came to be arrested and in the course of the investigation of the said crime, all bank accounts of the petitioner are frozen and the car in question was seized and kept in the Courtyard of the concerned Police Station. Thus, the said car was not in use of the petitioner when the present crime is alleged to have taken place, as per the case of the complainant.

4. In context with freezing of the bank accounts and sealing of office, a petition was moved before this Court, which was initially heard by the Single Bench and it was referred to the Division Bench consisting V.P. Tipnis and Palkar, JJ., who quashed the seizing of the car, sealing of office and freezing of bank accounts of the petitioner. It was challenged in the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court granted stay to the judgment and order of the Division Bench as noted above. Shri Pradhan submitted that the accounts of the petitioner are still frozen.

5. Shri Pradhan submitted that the petitioner did not commit offence punishable under section 138 of the Act, because, the petitioner did not commit any act which is falling under the purview of section 138 of the Act. He submitted that as his bank accounts were frozen, he could not have honoured the said cheques when they were presented in the bank. He pointed out in this context the memoranda issued by the bank in respect of dishonouring of three cheques.

6. By pointing out these things, Shri Pradhan submitted that the prosecution which has been initiated by the act of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the complaint filed by the respondent No. 2, deserves and needs to be quashed.

7. Shri Saste, A.P.P., made his best for supporting the order which has been assailed by this petition, passed by the said Court. He submitt

Click Here to Read the rest of this document