Bombay High Court
YATISH GOYALversusNEENA ASHOK SHAH THROUGH HIS CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY DILIPKUMAR ATMARAM NAGPAL AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court held that the applicant was not involved in the issuance of the cheque and quashed the earlier orders.
Summary
Yatish Goyal, an employee of a company, filed a criminal application challenging earlier orders that implicated him in the issuance of a cheque. The learned advocate argued that Goyal was not involved in the cheque issuance, a point not considered by the Additional Sessions Judge or the Metropolitan Magistrate. The High Court examined the earlier issue process order dated 18 October 2013 and the revision order dated 4 March 2015, finding them erroneous. Consequently, the Court quashed both orders and allowed the criminal application. The application was disposed of in favor of the applicant.
Issues considered
- Was the applicant, Yatish Goyal, involved in the issuance of the cheque?
- Should the earlier issue process order and revision order be set aside on the ground of non‑consideration of the applicant's non‑involvement?
Subjects
- employee
- cheque issuance
- criminal application
- quash
- issue process order
- revision order
- High Court
Judgment
37apl 447 of 2017.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 447 OF 2017
Yatish Goyal .. Applicant
Versus
Neena Ashok Shah
Through Constituted Attorney
Mr. Dilipkumar Atmaram Nagpal
and Anr. .. Respondents
....................
Ms. Mehernaz Contractor i/b. M/s. Bafna Law Associates, Advocate
for Applicant.
Mr. Sukanta A. Karmakar, APP for the Respondent – State.
................…
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : AUGUST 14, 2026
P. C.:
1. Heard Ms. Contractor, learned Advocate for the Applicant and
Mr. Karmakar, learned APP for the Respondent–State.
2. This Application was heard along with Criminal Application No.
Digitally
signed by 439 of 2017, today. Mr. Yatish Goyal, who is the Applicant, is
RAJESHRI
RAJESHRI PRAKASH
PRAKASH AHER
AHER Date:
2026.08.20
20:40:34
admittedly an employee of the company. This is what is argued by the
+0530
learned Advocate appearing for the Applicant. Considering that he is
an employee of the Company, his case would be on a stronger and
higher footing than that of the Director of the Company. Insofar as the
Rajeshri Aher
1 of 2
37apl 447 of 2017.odt
Director of the Company is concerned, this Court has already passed
an order in Criminal Application No. 438 of 2017 on 17 th March, 2026.
Today, with regard to the same cause of action, Criminal Application
No. 439 of 2017 qua the Director has also been disposed of.
3. The learned Advocate for the Applicant apprises the Court that
the Applicant Yatish Goyal was not involved in issuance of the cheque.
In that view of the matter, the said issue having not been considered
by the Additional Sessions Judge as well as the the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate, this Court will, therefore, have to interfere
with the said decisions passed by them. In that view of the matter, the
Criminal Application stands allowed.
4. The issue process order dated 18th October, 2013, passed by the
learned Metropolitan Magistrate 20th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai in C.C.
No. 1046/SS/13 and order dated 4th March, 2015, passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Criminal Revision
Application No. 1574 of 2013, are quashed and set aside.
5. The Criminal Application is allowed and disposed of accordingly.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Rajeshri Aher
2 of 2
Checking your session…