PRASHANT K MEHTA AND ANRversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

P.H. JAYANI                                                05 IA667.2026.DOC


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
             CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 667 OF 2026
                               IN
              CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2502 OF 2009

1. Prashant K. Mehta
                                                         …. Applicants
2. Rajeev K. Mehta

In the matter between :-
Splendour Gems Ltd., Mumbai and Ors.                     …. Petitioners

      V/s.
The State of Maharashtra and anr.                        …Respondents


Mr. Subhash Jha a/w. Ms. Minal Chandnani, Ms. Jyoti Ghag,
Mr. Shailesh Prajapati and Mr. Rajesh Dodia i/b. Dua Associates
for the Applicants in IA/667/2026.
Mr. Vinod Chate, APP for the Respondent No.1 – State.
Mr. Zoeb Cutlerywala a/w. Mr. Vikram Kamath, Mr. Advait
Shukla, Mr. Prakhar Dixit i/b. Phoenix Legal for Respondent No.2.


                           CORAM:       SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
                           DATED :      27th JULY, 2026
P.C. :-

1.        Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Mr. Cutlerywala
tendered an Affidavit-in-reply. It is taken on record.

2.        Present Interim Application seeks condonation of 30 days
delay in filing said Application and restoration of aforesaid
Petition which came to be dismissed for want of prosecution vide
Order dated 6th May, 2025.

3.        The aforesaid Petition was filed impugning an Order dated
14th September 2001, in Criminal Complaint No.609/S/2001,
passed by 40th Court of the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan


                               Page 1 of 6
                              th
                            27 JULY, 2026
P.H. JAYANI                                              05 IA667.2026.DOC



Magistrate, Girgaum, Mumbai. Thereby, it was directed to issue
process against the accused Nos.1 to 7, for the alleged offence
punishable under Section 138 and 141 of the Negotiable
Instrument Act 1881.

         The Applicants were arraigned as original accused Nos.3
and 7 in the said case. Accused No.2 was the Chairman and
Managing Director of Accused No.1 and Accused Nos.2 and 4 were
signatory to the dishonoured cheque. Accused Nos.2 and 5 have
expired as stated in the Application.

3.1      By Order dated 9th October 2009, passed by this Court in the
said Petition, Rule was granted and as an interim relief in terms of
prayer clause (d), pending the hearing and disposal of the Petition,
further proceedings in Criminal Complaint No.609/S/2001
pending before the 40th Court of the learned Addl. Metropolitan
Magistrate were stayed. On dated 22.04.2025 when the Petition
was listed and notified on the board, none appeared for the
Petitioners. The Petition was pending since 2009. Therefore, the
Petition was directed to be listed on 06.05.2025 under the caption
‘for dismissal’. Accordingly, the Petition was listed on 06.05.2025.
However, none appeared for the Petitioners. Therefore, this Court
was constrained to dismiss the Petition for want of prosecution.

4.       Mr. Jha, learned Counsel for the Applicants submitted that
since Rule was granted in the Petition, the matter ought to have
been listed for final hearing, but, the Petition was not listed for
final hearing. However, this submission is untenable because the
farad note dated 1st April 2025 indicates that the Petition was
directed to be listed for final hearing. Thereafter, the Petition was
listed on 22nd April and 6th May 2025. However, the Petitioners
and their Advocate on record were absent on the said dates. No

                               Page 2 of 6
                              th
                            27 JULY, 2026
P.H. JAYANI                                               05 IA667.2026.DOC



justifiable reason is shown by Mr. Jha, the learned Counsel for
absence of the Petitioners and their Advocate on the said date. Mr.
Jha tried to blame the Advocate on record for the Petitioner for
the said absence. However, how that Advocate was responsible for
the consecutive absence is not explained.

5.       In the Application it is stated that this Interim Application
was prepared on 4th July 2025 and it was filed on 5 th July 2025.
However, due to excessive work load and some inadvertent
reasons, the Advocate clerk failed to clear the office objection.
However, Mr. Cutlerywala, the learned Counsel for Respondent
No.2 pointed that the instant interim Application was signed by
Applicant No.1 on 4th July 2025, but, filed on 20th January 2026,
not on 5th July 2025. This is confirmed by the case status (pg 82)
and not controverted by Mr. Jha. As such, according to Mr.
Cutlerywala there is around eight months delay in filing this
Application which is not satisfactorily explained and, said conduct
indicates that the Applicants were not sincere even for restoration
of the Petition after its dismissal and, they just wanted to prolong
the original criminal case pending before the learned Addl.
Metropolitan Magistrate.

6.       In view of what Mr. Cutlerywala highlighted, Mr. Jha the
learned Counsel submitted that since Rule was issued in the
Petition, therefore, the instant Interim Application may be allowed
subject to costs. This submissions is not much opposed by Mr.
Cutlerywala. Therefore, there is no hurdle to allow the Application
with costs. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances
of the case, in my considered view, heavy costs is required to be
imposed in the case.



                               Page 3 of 6
                              th
                            27 JULY, 2026
P.H. JAYANI                                                    05 IA667.2026.DOC



7.       In this regard, it is necessary to note that, the dishonoured
cheque is dated 10th May 2001. Said complaint case has been filed
in the year 2001, by Respondent No.2 – the drawee, on account of
dishonour of the cheque drawn on Dena Bank in the name of
Accused No.1 formerly known as M/s. Beautiful Diamonds Ltd.
towards discharge of their alleged liability as part payment and
realiasation of over draft in the current account maintained with
Respondent No.2/Complainant by Accused No.1 M/s. Beautiful
Diamonds Ltd. The Petitioners/original accused Nos. 1 to 7 took 8
years to challenge the Order of issue process. The dishonoured
cheque was drawn for the sum of Rs.32 lakhs towards part
payment of the outstanding and overdue amount of Rs.12.50
Crores of “Export Credit Limit/Facilities”. Meaning thereby, since
last 25 years, the Applicants and other accused persons have been
using that limit and the dishonoured cheque amount without
paying the principal amount and the interest accruing thereon.
Even if simple interest is calculated at the rate of 7% per annum on
the outstanding and overdue amount of Rs.12.50 Crores, the
interest      for   the   last      twenty    five   years   would   come
Rs.21,87,50,000/-. And, on the dishonoured cheque amount, such
interest amount would be Rs.56,00,000/-. The Applicants and the
original accused have been litigating only out of the interest
amount which otherwise is payable to Respondent No.2 and, is the
public money. By this time, the value of the dishonoured cheque
amount has been very much depreciated. By way of the said case,
Respondent No.2 has been trying to recover part of the said
amount enduring the litigation cost. As against this, the Applicants
and their co-accused have been reaping the benefit of the
outstanding amount. As noted above, the Applicants only wants to
prolong the said case and take advantage of the dilatory tactics. To
save the Applicants from paying costs, Mr. Jha, the learned

                                    Page 4 of 6
                                   th
                                 27 JULY, 2026
P.H. JAYANI                                                   05 IA667.2026.DOC



Counsel submits that M/s. Splendour Gems Ltd. has gone into
liquidation. However, he has not informed exactly when the
company went into liquidation and if not full, why even 10% part
of the outstanding amount could not be returned before the
accused company went into the liquidation.

8.       In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered view
that costs of Rs.10,00,000/- will be reasonable in the matter to
allow this Interim Application and restore the Petition. As a result,
the Interim Application partly succeeds. Hence, following Order is
passed :-

         (i)    Interim Application is partly allowed subject to costs
         of Rs.10,00,000/- to be paid by the Applicants.

         (ii)   The delay in filing of the Interim Application is
         condoned.

         (iii) The aforesaid dismissal Order dated 6th May, 2025 is
         set-aside.

         (iv)   The said costs shall be deposited in this Court
         Registry within eight weeks from the date of uploading of
         this Order on the official website of this Court.

         (v)    On payment of the costs as aforesaid, the Petition
         shall stand restored to the file along with the interim relief,
         to the stage, at which the Petition was dismissed.

         (vi)   Out of the costs amount, Rs.5,00,000/- be paid to
         Respondent No.2.




                                Page 5 of 6
                               th
                             27 JULY, 2026
                      P.H. JAYANI                                                05 IA667.2026.DOC


                               (vii) The balance costs amount of Rs.5,00,000/- shall be
                               paid to to the Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund’
                               (AFBCWF) in the following the bank account :-

                                Account Name    :- Armed Forces Battle Casualties
                                                   Welfare Fund (AFBCWF)
                                Bank Name       :- Canara Bank Ltd. DoD, South Block
                                Branch Name     :- South Block, Defence Headquarters,
                                                   New Delhi – 110011.
                                Account Number :- 90552010165915
                                IFSC Code       :- CNRB0019055
                                Type of Account :- Saving

                      9.       If the costs amount is not paid within stipulated period, this
                      Order shall stand recalled without further reference to this Court.
                      In that event, this Interim Application shall stand dismissed and
                      the said dismissal Order dated 6th May, 2025 shall stand revived.

                      10.      Interim Application stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.

                      11.      List the Interim Application on 28th September 2026 for
                      ‘reporting compliance’.



                                                         (SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)
  PREETI
  HEERO
  JAYANI
Digitally signed by
PREETI HEERO
JAYANI
Date: 2026.07.29
12:49:10 +0530




                                                     Page 6 of 6
                                                    th
                                                  27 JULY, 2026