SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

KARISHMA CONSULTANT and ANR – Appellant
Versus
OM PRAKASH AGARWAL and ANR – Respondent
APPLN 2336/2001



Advocates:
['SHRI PRAKASH NAIK', 'P P', '', 'SHRI H H PONDA', 'FOR R', 'NO', 'SHRI S V MARWADI', 'S R SHARMA']

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2336 OF 2001

WITH

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2339 OF 2001

1. Karishma Consultant,

2. Ms.Varsha Devang Desai,

both having their place of

residence and business at

C-305, Karachi Citizen

Co-op, Housing Society Ltd.

New Juhu Link Road, behind

JVPD Bus Depot,

Mumbai 400 057

.... Applicants.

(Org.Accused Nos.1&2)

V/s.

1. Om Prakash Agarwal,

residing at 21 Sunita,

Cuffe Parade,

Mumbai 400 005

(Orig.Complainant)

2. State of Maharashtra

.... Respondents

WITH

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2339 OF 2001

1. Karishma Consultant,

2. Ms.Varsha Devang Desai,

both having their place of

residence and business at

C-305, Karachi Citizen

Co-op, Housing Society Ltd.

New Juhu Link Road, behind

JVPD Bus Depot,

Mumbai 400 057

.... Applicants.

(Org.Accused Nos.1&2)

V/s.

1. S.V.Sampat,

residing at 2A Shrikrupa,

5th Carter Road, Ground

Floor, Borivali (East),

Mumbai 400 067

(Orig.Complainant)

2. State of Maharashtra

.... Respondents

2

.....

Mr.N.K.Thakore i/by Mr.Prakash Naik for the

applicants.

Shri S.V.Marwadi, Advocate for respondent no.1.

Mrs.Usha V. Kejriwal, APP for State.

.....

WITH

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2337 OF 2001

1. Karishma Consultant,

2. Ms.Varsha Devang Desai,

both having their place of

residence and business at

C-305, Karachi Citizen

Co-op, Housing Society Ltd.

New Juhu Link Road, behind

JVPD Bus Depot,

Mumbai 400 057

.... Applicants.

(Org.Accused Nos.1&2)

V/s.

1. Smt.Kalpana Agarwal,

Wife of Om Prakash Agarwal,

residing at 21 Sunita,

Cuffe Parade,

Mumbai 400 005

(Orig.Complainant)

2. State of Maharashtra

.... Respondents

....

Mr.N.K.Thakore i/by Mr.Prakash Naik for the

applicants.

Mrs.A.A.Mane, APP for State.

....

WITH

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2338 OF 2001

1. Karishma Consultant,

2. Ms.Varsha Devang Desai,

both having their place of

residence and business at

C-305, Karachi Citizen

Co-op, Housing Society Ltd.

New Juhu Link Road, behind

JVPD Bus Depot,

3

Mumbai 400 057

.... Applicants.

(Org.Accused Nos.1&2)

V/s.

1. Rashmi Agarwal,

C/o. Om Prakash Agarwal

through Shiv Prakash Pandey,

certified attorney,

residing at 21 Sunita,

Cuffe Parade,

Mumbai 400 005

(Orig.Complainant)

2. State of Maharashtra

.... Respondents

....

Mr.N.K.Thakore i/by Mr.Prakash Naik for the

applicants.

Mr.A.S.Shitole, APP for State.

....

WITH

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2340 OF 2001

1. Karishma Consultant,

2. Ms.Varsha Devang Desai,

both having their place of

residence and business at

C-305, Karachi Citizen

Co-op, Housing Society Ltd.

New Juhu Link Road, behind

JVPD Bus Depot,

Mumbai 400 057

.... Applicants.

(Org.Accused Nos.1&2)

V/s.

1. Ravindra Agarwal,

C/o. Om Prakash Agarwal

through Prakash Pandey,

certified attorney,

residing at 21 Sunita,

Cuffe Parade,

Mumbai 400 005

(Orig.Complainant)

2. State of Maharashtra

.... Respondents

....

Mr.N.K.Thakore i/by Mr.Prakash Naik for the

applicants.

Mrs.A.A.Mane, APP for State.

4

....

CORAM :

V.R.KINGAONKAR, J.

DATE :

22ND SEPTEMBER, 2009.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1

The group of above noted applications filed

by original accused persons for quashing of

criminal complaint case u/s.482 of Criminal

Procedure Code is being decided together in

as much as identical questions of law and

facts are involved therein :

2

The applicants are the proprietary business

concern and proprietor, respectively who

had certain

transactions

with

the

respondent no.1 (Complainant). Devang Desai

was husband of the applicant no.2 and was

duly authorized to issue cheques for and on

behalf of the applicants. There is no

dispute about the fact that he issued five

cheques in question towards discharge of

financial liability which the applicants

were supposed to discharge. There is also

5

no dispute about the fact that the said

five cheques were dishonoured by the UCO

Bank when they were presented fo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top