Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction

Order Date: 23 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Applicant Yogi Agarwal (Director, Ardy International (P) Limited) vs. Respondent Rashmikant Shah (Director, Shah Knitwear Industries Private Limited) and others.
  • Nature of Proceeding: Criminal application filed under Section 482 CrPC challenging the legality of two earlier criminal process orders (Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate order dated 1 Mar 2016 and Additional Sessions Judge order dated 2 Dec 2023).
  • Background: Ardy International filed Civil Suit No. 2032 of 2005 against Shah Knitwear Industries seeking Rs 11,91,053 plus interest on Rs 9,44,254 at 18% p.a. The suit was decreed on 2 Aug 2010. Execution proceedings (Exec. App. No. 1273 of 2017) were later initiated.
  • Alleged Abuse: Respondent Shah filed a private criminal complaint (C.C. No. 451/SW/2012) alleging offences under IPC §§ 406, 420, 465, 468, 471, purportedly to delay execution of the civil decree.
  • Procedural History:
  • Single Judge R.N. Laddha ordered notice on 12 Feb 2025; counsel Fatima Lakdawala waived service and sought time for reply.
  • Extension granted on 16 Apr 2025; further adjournments to 9 Jun 2025 and then to 24 Aug 2026.
  • No vakalatnama or reply filed by counsel Fatima Lakdawala despite multiple orders.
  • Communication to Respondent returned undelivered; counsel later indicated affidavit would be filed the same day.
  • Legal Precedent Cited: Supreme Court decision in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335), paragraph 102, especially guideline (7) stating that proceedings manifestly attended with mala‑fide intent may be quashed under Section 482.
  • Court’s Reasoning: The complaint was found to be malicious, intended to thwart execution of the civil decree; the respondent’s counsel failed to comply with procedural requirements, leaving the allegations uncontradicted.

Final Outcome

  • The High Court allowed the criminal application and, in accordance with prayer clauses (a) and (b), quashed and set aside:

1. The order dated 1 Mar 2016 of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 22nd Court, Andheri, Mumbai, which issued process under IPC §§ 406, 420, 465, 468, 471.

2. The order dated 2 Dec 2023 of the Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Borivali, Division, Dindoshi, Mumbai, which dismissed the revision of the 2016 order.

  • The matter is to be proceeded with on merits only if the respondent appears; otherwise the criminal application stands quashed.

Topics: Criminal Procedure, Mala‑fide Litigation