Bombay High Court

M/S. VASAVI COMMUNICATIONS LTD. AND ORSversusM/S. ORION PHOTOSENSITIVE SYSTEM AND ANR.

Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The order issuing process under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be faulted and the petition is dismissed.

Summary

The petitioners, Vasavi Communications Ltd. and its directors, challenged an order dated 29 March 2004 of a Judicial Magistrate First Class that issued process against them under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for a dishonoured cheque. They argued that they were not heard before the summons and sought quashing of the order under Article 227 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The State contended that the order was a revisable order under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. and was correctly passed. The Court examined the complaint, noting that the cheque was returned dishonoured, a demand notice was issued, and the petitioners failed to pay within 15 days, justifying the magistrate’s issuance of process. The Court held that the magistrate had sufficient grounds to proceed and that the order could not be faulted, dismissing the writ petition.

Issues considered

Whether the order issuing process under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be quashed under Article 227 and Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Whether the petitioners were entitled to a hearing before the issuance of the summons.
Whether the order is a revisable order under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 397, 482
Constitution of India — s. Article 227
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — s. 138, 147

Subjects

Negotiable Instruments Act
Section 138
Section 147
Criminal Procedure Code
Section 482
Section 397
Article 227
quash petition
revisional jurisdiction
cheque dishonour
compounding of offence

Judgment

Digitally signed
by LAXMIKANT
LAXMIKANT GOPAL
GOPAL CHANDAN (907) WP-1284.05.DOCX
CHANDAN Date:
2026.08.21
18:23:58 +0530
lgc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1284 OF 2005

1] M/s. Vasavi Communications Ltd. ]
having address at C/o Andhra ]
Prabha, 6-3-4, Premnagar Road ]
No.10, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad ]
Andhra Pradesh ]
]
2] Mr. Mootha Gopalkrishna ]
Director ]
M/s. Vasavi Communications Ltd. ]
Resident of Door No.8-24-4B, ]
Subbarao Street, Gandhinagar ]
Kakinada 533 002 ]
District East Godavari, ]
Andhara Pradesh ]
]
3] Ms. Mootha Lakshmi ]
Director ]
M/s. Vasavi Communications Ltd. ]
Resident of Door No.8-24-4B, ]
Subbarao Street, Gandhinagar ]
Kakinada 533 002 ]
District East Godavari, ]
Andhara Pradesh ]
]
4] Mr. Kunapu Reddy Arunkumar ]
Age 48 years, - Director ]
M/s. Vasavi Communications Ltd. ]
Resident of C-1, Gopala Estates ]
Gandhinagar, Kakinada – 533 003 ]
District East Godavari ]
Andhra Pradesh ]
]
5] Mootha Gowtham ]
Authorised Signatory ]
for M/s. Vasavi Communications Ltd. ]
Resident of C-1, Gopala Estates ]
Gandhinagar, Kakinada – 533 003 ]… Petitioners

1
(907) WP-1284.05.DOCX

District East Godavari ](Org. Accd.
Andhra Pradesh ] Nos.1 to 5)
Versus
1] M/s. Orion Photosensitive System ]
through its Proprietor - ]
Mr. Pradeep V. Sakhadeo, ]
Residnt of 241/F, Shaniwar ]
Peth, Karad, District Satara – 415 110 ]
]
2] The State of Maharashtra ]
(Copy to be served on the ]...Respondents
Government Pleader, ] (No.1 Org.
High Court, Mumbai) ] Complainant)

-----
Ms. Shraddha Patil, Appointed under Legal Aid Scheme, for the
Petitioners.
Mr. Shishir Hiray, Chief Public Prosecutor a/w Dr. A. A. Takalkar,
APP for Respondent No.2 – State.
-------

CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.

DATED : 20 AUGUST 2026
ORAL JUDGMENT :-

1. Heard Ms. Shraddha Patil, learned Advocate for the
Petitioners and Mr. Shishir Hiray, learned Chief Public Prosecutor
of the Respondent No.2 – State.

2. By this Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code,
1973, the Petitioners assail the Order dated 29 th March 2004
passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karad, District Satara
(“Magistrate”) in Criminal Complaint No. 750 of 2004 (“impugned
order”), by which the Magistrate has issued process against the

2
(907) WP-1284.05.DOCX

Petitioners under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 (“N.I. Act”).

3. Rule was issued 17 August 2005.

4. Ms. Shraddha Patil, learned Advocate for the Petitioners, by
referring to the impugned order, submits that the order issuing
process is contrary to law. She further submits that the Petitioners
were not heard before the summons were issued in Criminal
Complaint No. 750 of 2004. She therefore requests for quashing of
the impugned order.

5. Mr. Shishir Hiray, learned Chief Public Prosecutor of the
Respondent No.2 – State, submits that the order issuing process is
a revisable order under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C., against which a
Criminal Revision Application is maintainable, at the first instance
before the Sessions Court. On merits, he submits that the
impugned order is passed in accordance with law and needs no
interference.

6. Perused the records with the assistance of the learned
Advocates for the parties.

7. A perusal of the averments in the complaint filed by the
Respondent No.1 (Complainant) in Criminal Complaint No. 750 of
2004 indicates that the Petitioners issued cheque No. 684258 for
Rs.70,720/- in discharge of a legally enforceable debt. The cheque
was presented for payment and returned dishonoured with the
endorsement “Exceeds Arrangements”. The Respondent No. 1
issued a demand notice under Section 138 (b) of the N.I. Act to the
Petitioners on 12th February 2004. That, despite receipt of the

3
(907) WP-1284.05.DOCX

demand notice, the Petitioners failed to pay the amount within the
period of 15 days.

8. The Magistrate, after due consideration of the said aspect of
the matter, has issued process under Section 138 of the N. I. Act,
against the Petitioners in Criminal Complaint No. 750 of 2004.

9. The impugned order discloses that the Magistrate has after
considering the material placed in Criminal Complaint 750 of 2004
formed an opinion that there are sufficient grounds to proceed
against the Petitioners. In view of the above, the impugned order
cannot be faulted.

10. Ms. Shraddha Patil, learned Advocate for the Petitioners,
submits that the Petitioners have paid the amount covered by the
cheque to the Respondent No.1 and that the Petitioners intend to
file an Application under Section 147 of the N.I. Act before the
Magistrate seeking compounding of the offence. If an application
as submitted by Ms. Shraddha Patil, learned Advocate for the
Petitioners, is filed in Criminal Complaint No. 750 of 2004, it be
considered on its own merits and in accordance with law.

11. In the wake of the above, no case is made out to entertain
this Petition.

12. Interim Order stands vacated.

13. Criminal Writ Petition No.1284 of 2005 is dismissed. Rule is
discharged.

14. No orders as to costs.

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…