Ritesh Kritikumar Shah Through Vaishali Kritikumar Shah, Poa v. State Of Maharashtra And ANR

3. WP 3896-2025.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ANAND SUDHAKAR SUDAME CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3896 OF 2025 Ritesh Kritikumar Shah .Petitioner by ANAND SUDHAKAR SUDAME Date: 2025.07.28 19:54:58 +0530

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & ors.

.Respondents Mr. Sachin Hande, Advocate, for the Petitioner Mr. H. J. Dedhia, APP, for Respondent No. 1 - State ______________________________________________________ CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J.

DATE : 24.07.2025 P. C.

1.

Heard Mr. Hande, learned Advocate for the Petitioner and Ms. Dedhia, learned APP for Respondent No. 1 - State. 2.

There is a challenge to the Order dated 18.03.2025 passed by learned 3rd Jt. JMFC, Cantonment Court, Pune. The complaint is filed for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. It was dismissed for non-prosecution and the Accused is acquitted.

3.

There is a remedy of an Appeal provided as per the provisions of Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 4.

The Writ Petition is not maintainable. In addition to that recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anand

3. WP 3896-2025.doc Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran etc., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1320 has considered the Complainant in such a prosecution as a victim. It is also observed leave to prefer an Appeal is not required. It is for the Complainant to decide which option is to be exercised. In any case, the Writ Petition is not maintainable. 5.

He seeks leave to withdraw and liberty to file an Appeal. The Petition stands disposed of as withdrawn. Liberty is granted to prefer an Appeal as per the appropriate provisions.

(S. M. MODAK, J.) Anand