SUPREME INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Rule. The rule is made returnable forthwith. The learned APP waives service for respondent No. 1 and the learned advocate Mr. Totla, h/f Mr. Karwa waives service for respondent No. 2. On the request of both the sides the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.

(2.) The petitioners are impugning the orders passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on the same day i.e. 06.08.2018 in Criminal Revision No. 02/2017 and Criminal Revision Application No. 27/2017 arising out of the same order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in Regular Criminal Case No. 187/2015 dated 08.12.2016, whereby, in a complaint filed by the respondent No. 2 against the petitioners for the offences of forgery, cheating and misappropriation, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate directed the process to be issued against the accused No. 7 i.e. petitioner No. 7 herein only, for the offence punishable under Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code but dismissed the complaint against rest of the petitioners. Criminal Revision No. 2/2017 was preferred by the respondent No. 2 whereas Criminal Revision No. 27/2017 was preferred by the petitioner No. 7. The learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed both the revisions. He quashed and set aside the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate directing process to be issued and directed the learned Magistrate to give opportunity to the respondent No. 2 herein who was the complainant to lead evidence and to examine his witnesses and to pass a fresh order. Hence this Writ Petition.

(3.) The learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner No. 1 is a Company and was intending to acquire lands for expansion of its activity. The respondent No. 2 is a broker who undertook to make available lands for the petitioner No. 1 Company against commission. Pursuant to such engagement petitioner No. 1 Company had paid him different amounts by cheques for acquiring a particular piece of land. However, the transaction could not materialized and with a view to refund the amount received by him and pursuant to a settlement he issued 21 cheques for an amount of Rs. 50,000/- each towards refund. However he honoured only couple of cheques and the remaining 19 cheques were dishonoured. Therefore the petitioner No. 1 served him with statutory notices, two of which were duly served to him. It was specifically mentioned in those notices that those cheques were issued in terms of the settlement arrived at between the petitioners and him when transaction could not materialized and he in terms of settlement agreed to repay an amount of Rs. 10,50,000/- to the petitioners. He specifically acknowledged his liability in the recitals of the settlement which was witnessed by Charter Accountant Mr. S.R. Maniyar. Since the respondent No. 2 failed to pay the moneys as demanded in the notices, the petitioner- Company had to file complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against him in respect of the dishonour of 19 cheques. The process was issued in all those matters. Plea of the respondent No. 2 was also recorded and the cases were posted for leading evidence by the petitioner/complainant.