AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 1259
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the respective parties. 3. These writ petitions are filed for quashing of various orders passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nandurbar in the Summary Criminal Cases Nos. 1010/2019, 1011/2019, 1012/2019 and 1013/2019 registered under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, "the N.I. Act"). 4. The petitioner moved various applications which are mentioned below writ-wise. Those were rejected. The applications of the respondent No. 2 for grant of interim compensation were allowed. All those impugned orders are challenged in these writ petitions :- i) CRI. WRIT PETITION NO. 226 OF 2023 An order passed below Exh. 1 of issue process, Exh. 35 for production of statement of bank accounts of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n each agreement. Exh. 34 for comparing signatures of petitioner on each page of the agreement by Court and Exh. 12 for grant of interim compensation. iv) CRI. WRIT PETITION NO. 234 OF 2023 An order passed below Exh. 1 of issue process, Exh. 21 for discharge of the petitioner and for dismissal of complaint for want of jurisdiction, Exh. 32 for production of statement of bank account of the respondent No. 2, Exh. 36 the direction for merging all charges and clubbing four cases and to try them as one and same offence, Exh. 33 for sending cheque to Handwriting Expert, Exh. 35 for verification of each signature of petitioner on each page of the agreement by the Court and Exh. 12 for grant of interim compensation filed by the r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion in each case and those were allowed. 7. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the money transaction took place between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 at Pune. However, mischievously and in order to harass the petitioner, these complaints are filed in the Court of JMFC, Nandurbar. The Nandurbar JMFC Court has no jurisdiction to try these complaints cases. A petitioner is residing at Pune and not at Nandurbar. The procedure as to inquiry as per Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Cr.P.C.) was not followed by the learned JMFC, Nandurbar. The enquiry as per Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. is mandatory and without making enquiry, the orders of issue process are illegal. He lastly submitted to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y submitted to dismiss all the writ petitions. 10. Learned advocate for the respondent No. 2 is relying upon the following authorities :- i] 2023 DGLS (Bom.) 4467 [Mukund s/o Manohar Wazalwar Vrs. Eknath s/o Bajirao Hatwar (Dead) through his LRs Durwas Eknath Hatwar and others.] in which it is held that Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not applicable to the Summary Proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. ii] 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1174 [Sunil Todi and others Vrs. State of Gujarat and another.] The Magistrate having exercised his discretion, it was not open to the High Court to substitute its discretion in case of issue process under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 11. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in these orders. 15. The applications filed by the petitioner for production of statement of bank accounts of the respondent No. 2 were rejected. These documents were required for hearing of discharge application. The learned Trial Court observed and held that such applications can be moved later on and all applications can be considered when defence leads evidence at proper stage. The petitioner has ample opportunity to lead that evidence. The Court can also compare signatures on it under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Court expressed that it will compare signature. It is surprising to note that once issuance of cheques is admitted by the petitioner, how the signature on it can be challenged. There is no scope for interferen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s are not maintainable. As per Section 408 of the Cr.P.C. the application must be moved before the Sessions Court for clubbing those cases. Those applications were also not maintainable before trial court. 18. The applications were filed for dismissal of complaint for want of jurisdiction. Those were rejected. However, those orders are not interlocutory. The revisions before Sessions Court against the orders of Trial Court regarding issue of jurisdiction are to be filed. Those were not filed by the petitioner. In case of rejecting the application challenging the jurisdiction of the court to proceed with the trial, even though it may not be final in one sense, is surely not interlocutory order, substantially it is a final order as held in....