Angel Broking Private Limited And ORS v. Anil Agrawal And ANR

1/4 nsc.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1079 OF 2015 Angel Broking Private Limited and Ors ...Applicants

Versus

Anil Agrawal and Anr.

...Respondents

Mr.Santanu Mitra a/w Mr.Anubhav Ghosh i/b M/s.Desai and Diwanji, for the Applicants.

Mr.Vijay Thorat i/b Mr.S.B.Thorat, for the Respondent No.1. Mr.Vinod Chate, A.P.P for the Respondent No.2-State. CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

DATE : 2nd FEBRUARY, 2018 P.C. :

1.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2.

At the outset, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 (original complainant) submitted that he has no objection for quashing and setting aside of the impugned order dated 13th April, 2015, passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, in C.C.No.800160/SW/2013, issuing process as against the applicants.

2/4 Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 accepts that the said order of issue process was passed by the learned Magistrate prematurely and without waiting for the report under Section 202 of Code of Criminal Procedure. He submitted that the learned Magistrate has now received the report and as such the impugned order be set aside and the learned Magistrate be directed to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, after considering the report filed by the police and the complaint. 3.

Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that there are several issues raised in the application, apart from the issue that the order of issue process was passed by the learned Magistrate, prematurely. 4.

Perused the papers including the impugned order of issue process dated 13th April, 2015. Admittedly, the respondent no.1 had filed a private complaint i.e. C.C.No.160/SW/2013 on 5th December, 2013 in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai. After, the learned Magistrate rejected the respondent no.1's (Original complainant's) prayer to pass an order under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Magistrate recorded the

3/4 verification of the respondent no.1 and ordered an enquiry under Section 202 of Code of Criminal Procedure, on 6th September, 2014. Admittedly, the learned Magistrate without waiting for the report, issued process as against the applicants on 13th April, 2015, which order has been impugned in this application. The learned Magistrate ought to have waited for the report before issuing process and hence, on this very ground the impugned order of issue process ought to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the following order is passed:-

ORDER

i) The impugned order dated 13th April, 2015, passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, in C.C.No.800160/SW/2013, is quashed and set aside; ii) The learned Magistrate shall pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, after considering the final report submitted by the police dated 5th January, 2016 and the complaint, on its own merits, in accordance with law.

4/4 5.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. 6.

All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.