Authority: Bombay High Court, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
Order Date: 22 September 2026
Case Overview
- Petitioner/Applicants: The legal heirs of the deceased Prabhavati Sumatilal Patni, namely Rajendra Sumatilal Patni and others.
- Respondents: M.M. Shah Consultants Ltd and associated parties.
- Petition: Writ Petition No. 1200 of 2004, originally filed in 2004 and never heard until 2026.
- Criminal Applications: Application No. 568 of 2018 (seeking to bring legal heirs on record and condone delay) and Application No. 569 of 2018 (same relief with heirs’ names correctly mentioned). Both were allowed.
- Background of Dispute: The petitioner filed a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, alleging cheque dishonour after paying Rs. 3.8 lakhs for residential plot No. 14 in Survey No. 125, Aundh, Pune. The respondent handed over two cheques which were subsequently dishonoured. The petitioner approached the Magistrate (order dated 14‑06‑2002) for issuance of process. The Magistrate allowed the application; the respondent appealed.
- Revision: Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Criminal Revision No. 2 of 7, Application No. 712 of 2002, dated 28‑08‑2003, set aside the Magistrate’s order and dismissed the complaint.
- Legal Arguments: The petitioner’s counsel argued that Sections 138, 142, 145 of the NI Act and Section 200 of the CrPC permit the Magistrate to issue process based on the complaint and supporting documents, citing Supreme Court decision A.C. Narayanan vs State of Maharashtra (2014, paragraph 43) supporting a Power of Attorney filing.
- Court’s Reasoning:
- The complainant is a private individual, not a juristic person; therefore Section 142A of the NI Act applies.
- Section 142A expressly limits cognizance to complaints filed by the payee/holder themselves; a Power of Attorney holder cannot depose on facts exclusive to the original complainant.
- The Sessions Judge correctly interpreted the provision and set aside the Magistrate’s order.
- No binding precedent from the Bombay High Court on this specific point was cited.
Final Outcome
- The High Court upheld the Additional Sessions Judge’s order dated 28‑08‑2003, confirming that the Magistrate’s issuance of process was erroneous.
- Both Criminal Applications No. 568 and No. 569 of 2018 are allowed; the 10‑year, 129‑day delay is condoned.
- The petitioner’s advocate is directed to amend the court record within two weeks of the order’s upload.
- Re‑verification is dispensed with; the writ petition is dismissed.
- The court noted that a civil suit between the parties remains pending before a civil court, which will determine the substantive rights.
Topics: Negotiable Instruments, Court Procedure