9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 778X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and challenged the Judgment and order dated 6th May, 2017, passed by the Learned Additional Sessions, Judge, Aurangabad in Criminal Revision petition No. 84 of 2017, confirming the order dated 16th November, 2016, passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad in Summery Criminal Case No. 8509 of 2016. 2. The factual matrix of the matter is as under : (a) Respondent No.1 filed a complaint viz Summary Criminal Case No. 8509 of 2016, before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad. In the complaint, it was alleged that in the year 2014, the accused requested the complainant to start a business of Tours and Travels and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Negotiable Instruments Act. 4. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order by preferring Criminal Revision Petition No. 84 of 2017, before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad on 1st April, 2017. The said Revision Application was rejected vide order dated 6th May, 2017. 5. The learned Advocate for the petitioner challenged the proceeding on the sole ground that before issuing process, the learned Magistrate failed to follow mandatory provisions of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is submitted that accused was resident of Nashik and the complaint is filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad. Since the accused was residing beyond the jurisdiction of the trial Court, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was observed that accused was residing beyond the jurisdiction of the Court and the process was issued against them by the Trial Court without complying mandatory provision of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Sessions Court considered the decision of this Court, in the case of Dr. (Mrs.) Rajul Ketan Ra j Vs. Reliance Capital Limited And Another ( 2016(1) BCR 807 ) as well as the other decisions wherein it was observed that, it is not required to hold enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 8. The Supreme Court in the case of Abhijit Pawar Vs. Hemant Nimbalkar and Anr (supra) has observed that enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd to provision of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court has referred to decisions in the case of Nectar Solutions Private Limited, Mumbai and Others Vs. Penakle Industry Private Limited, and Others ( 2012(3) Mh.L.J. 725 ) as well as decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Dhanuka ETC Vs. Najima Mamtaj ETC ( 2014 All MR (Cri. ) 1924 (SC). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision has considered the issue relating to compliance of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, qua the prosecution under the Indian Penal Code. This Court has drawn distinction between the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the prosecution under the Indian Penal Code. Taking into ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
