ARCHANA RAJENDRA JASUD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner is the original accused No.2 in C.C. No.1421/SS/2018, before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 58 th Court, Bandra, Mumbai. The Petitioner has challenged the order dtd. 11/07/2019 passed by the learned Magistrate issuing process against the Applicant for commission of offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The said order was challenged before the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai in Criminal Revision Application No. 1401 of 2019. It was rejected vide the order dtd. 1/09/2023.

(2.) Heard Mr. Niranjan Mundargi, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms Sangita D. Shinde, learned APP for the State.

(3.) Though various grounds on merits of the matter are mentioned in the petition memo; the only point which is canvassed before me by the learned counsel for the Petitioner is regarding non-compliance of Sec. 202 of CrPC. The Petitioner is residing at Pune as is mentioned in the cause title of the complaint itself. She was residing outside the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate who had passed the impugned order and therefore, the enquiry u/s 202 of Cr.P.C. was mandatory. In support of his case, learned counsel relied on the judgment of Single Judge of this Court at Aurangabad Bench, passed in Criminal Writ Petition No.1416 of 2021 on 22/02/2023 in the case of Oneup Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vishwakalyan Multistate Credit Co-op. Society Ltd. In that judgment it was observed that inquiry u/s 202 of Cr.P.C. was not conducted though it was mandatory, as the accused in that case was residing outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Court issuing process.