CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(1999) 04 BOM CK 0002

Shobha Maheshwari vs Narayanprasad Jajodia and another

Bombay High Court · Decided on 28 April 1999

HON’BLE JUDGES
Pratibha Upasani, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal W. P. No. 1552 of 1992

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 351 words

Dr. Pratibha Upasani, J.—This Criminal Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the order of issuance of process, dated 30th March, 1992, passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 28th Court, Esplanade, Bombay, in Case No. 21/TCR of 1989, in pursuance to the complaint filed by the respondent No. 1-Narayanprasad Jajodia u/s 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

2.

I have heard both the Advocates. I have also perused the proceedings. The complainant''s case appears to be that it was the transaction about the sale of a flat in the Society known as Fairfield Co-operative Housing Society Limited. The total agreed consideration was Rs. 25 lakhs, which amount was admittedly received by the complainant and cheques were issued from time to time towards the fulfillment of the agreement arrived at between the parties. However, it was the contention of the complainant that the amount of Rs. 2 lakhs was paid less than the agreed consideration by the petitioner-accused.

3.

Mr. Kanuga submits that a suit being Suit No. 3951 of 1990, for recovery of this amount of Rs. 2 lakhs was also filed by the complainant against the accused which is pending in this Court. I have perused the said complaint. After reading the same, the offence of cheating is not spelt out. Admittedly, the amount had been paid by the petitioner from time to time. The only hitch was with respect of one cheque for the sum of Rs. 2 lakhs. The case of the complainant was that this amount was not paid, while the petitioner stated that this amount was paid. No explanation had been given by the Bank with respect to this cheque in question. It appears to be purely the matter of civil Court for which recourse has already been taken by the complainant. As such, no offence u/s 420 of the Indian Penal Code is revealed from the averments made by the complainant in the complaint. Hence the following order :

Writ petition No. 1552 of 1992 is allowed. Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). Interim order dated 7-2-1994 is hereby vacated.