9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Challenge to order issuing process u/s 182 Cr.P.C, non-compliance with procedure u/s 202 Cr.P.C, absence of debt or liability, lack of privity of contract, jurisdictional issue of cause of action.
Challenge to order issuing process u/s 182 Cr.P.C: The application was filed to challenge the order issuing process on a complaint u/s 182 of the Cr.P.C. It was contended that the mandatory procedure u/s 202 of the Cr.P.C was not followed. Additionally, it was argued that there was no debt or liability on the part of the accused, which could be determined prima facie from the documents attached to the petition. Moreover, it was asserted that there was no privity of contract between the complainant and the accused. Lastly, the issue was raised that the cause of action had arisen in Ahmedabad, not Mumbai. Non-compliance with procedure u/s 202 Cr.P.C: The Court noted that the provision u/s 202 of the Cr.P.C was held to be directory and not mandatory in a previous order. Regarding the cause of action, it was established that since the complainant's registered office, the cheque deposit, and notice receipt all occurred in Mumbai, the Magistrate's Court in Mumbai had jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that the issues of privity of contract and enforceable debt and liability could only be determined by the trial Court after evidence is presented. Conclusion: The Court found merit in the submissions of the respondent, dismissing the criminal application. The petitioner was exempted from appearing in the trial Court, with the provision that their plea and statement u/s 313 of the Cr.P.C would be recorded through their Advocate, subject to certain undertakings. The decision highlighted the importance of evidence in determining crucial issues raised during the proceedings.
|
