LAWS(BOM)-2019-7-79

ANIL BABURAO CHALKE Vs. MEENAMANI GANGA BUILDER

Decided On July 11, 2019
Anil Baburao Chalke Appellant
V/S
Meenamani Ganga Builder Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition is filed with the following substantive prayer:-

(2.) The Petitioner herein is accused in SCC No. 1331 of 2016 filed by the first respondent. The first respondent filed an application under Section 311 of Code Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.PC'), for examination of witnesses Mr. Anuj Goyal. The said application was allowed and the Trial Court issued summons to complainant Mr. Anuj Goyal to appear before the Court for recording his evidence. Being aggrieved by the said order the present petitioner filed Criminal Revision No. 120 of 2018 however, the said revision was rejected. Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submits that, first respondent had full knowledge of memorandum of understanding dated 3rd July 2013, which was executed between the original complainant Mr. Anuj Goyal and applicant Mr. Anil Chalke and others and cancellation deed dated 25th September 2013 between Mr. Anuj Goyal and applicant and others. The said verified copies of aforesaid documents are on the record of Trial Court right from the filing of the original complaint, but in spite of that till completion of cross examination of first respondent, he had not taken any steps as far as aforesaid documents are concerned. It is submitted that when the first respondent realized that the application is going to succeed in the proceedings, he deliberately and intentionally filed application under Section 311 of Cr.PC., just to harass the applicant. It is submitted that proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'NI Act') are required to be completed as expeditiously as possible and within six months from institution of the proceedings under Section 138 of NI Act. In support of aforesaid contention learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on ratio laid down in the case of Kavita Satish Agrawal Vs. Mahesh Nagari Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit, Sangamner through its Recovery Officer, 2018 1 MhLJ(Cri) 318.