Bombay High Court

DELTA IRRIGATION LLP THROUGH SHRI NILESH VIJAY PANJWANIversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The High Court set aside the order clubbing the two cases and directed that the proceedings be decided separately.

Summary

Delta Irrigation LLP, through its partner, filed two writ petitions challenging an order dated 11 April 2022 of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kolhapur, which had clubbed two separate criminal cases (S.C.C. No. 4377 of 2021 and S.C.C. No. 4375 of 2021) under Section 219 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioner argued that the cases involved different cheques and therefore distinct causes of action, invoking the special procedure under Sections 142 and 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which supersede the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court examined whether the lower court correctly applied Section 219 to merge the trials. It held that the clubbing was erroneous, set aside the impugned order, and directed that the two cases be tried separately. The court also stayed the lower court's order pending the final decision and disposed of both writ petitions.

Issues considered

Whether the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kolhapur, correctly applied Section 219 of the Criminal Procedure Code to club two separate cases involving different cheques.
Whether the special provisions of Sections 142 and 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act preclude the application of Section 219, Cr.P.C., in such circumstances.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 219
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — s. 142, 143

Subjects

Criminal Procedure Code
Section 219
Negotiable Instruments Act
Sections 142 and 143
clubbing of cases
separate trial
writ petition
stay order

Judgment

903-WP-2954-2023 (CR).docx

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 2954 OF 2023

Delta Irrigation LLP
Limited Liability Partnership Firm,
Through its Partner
Shri Nilesh Vijay Panjwani
Age 35 Years, Occu. Business,
Office address : T-9, Crystal Plaza, 38A,
E Ward, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur. …...Petitioner

Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. Pramod Yashwant Desai
Age 44 Years, Occu. Business,
R/o. B-12, Rajshree Shahu Society,
Satara Road, Bibwewadi,
Pune 411 037 …...Respondents

WITH
CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 2953 OF 2023

Versus

osk 1 of 6
903-WP-2954-2023 (CR).docx

1. The State of Maharashtra
2. Pramod Yashwant Desai
Age 44 Years, Occu. Business,
R/o. B-12, Rajshree Shahu Society,
Satara Road, Bibwewadi,
Pune 411 037 …...Respondents

----
 Mr. Bhushan Deshmukh (Through V.C.) a/w. Mr. Satyajeet Shirke for
the Petitioner in both Petitions.
 Mr. C.D. Mali, A.P.P. for the Respondent No.1-State.
 Mr. Amit Icham for the Respondent No.2.
-------

Coram : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.

Date : 6th October 2026.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard, Mr. Bhushan Deshmukh, learned Advocate for the Petitioner,

Mr. Mali, learned A.P.P. for the Respondent No. 1-State and Mr. Amit Icham,

learned Advocate for the Respondent No. 2.

2. Mr. Bhushan Deshmukh, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, Mr. Mali,

learned A.P.P. for the Respondent No. 1-State and Mr. Amit Icham, learned

Advocate for the Respondent No. 2, state that the subject matter of both these

Petitions is common and that both the Petitions be taken up together and

disposed of by a common order. At their joint request, both the Petitions are

taken up together.

osk 2 of 6
903-WP-2954-2023 (CR).docx

3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, heard

finally.

4. In Writ Petition No. 2954 of 2023, the Petitioner has sought the

following substantive relief in prayer clause 7A, as set out verbatim:

“a. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow the present
Petition and quashed and set aside the order dated 11/04/2022
passed below Exh. 15 in S.C.C. No. 4377 of 2021 passed by the Ld.
5th JMFC, Kolhapur.”

5. In Writ Petition No. 2953 of 2023, the Petitioner has sought the

following substantive relief in prayer clause 7A:

“a. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow the present
Petition and quashed and set aside the order dated 11/04/2022
passed below Exh. 15 in S.C.C. No. 4375 of 2021 passed by the Ld.
5th JMFC, Kolhapur.”

6. The orders dated 5th September 2023 and 11th December 2024 passed

in these petitions are relevant, as such, reproduced:-

a. Orders dated 5th September 2023:-

“1. The Petitioner is the original complainant in S.C.C.No.4377 of
2021, as well as, in S.C.C.No.4375 of 2021 pending before the
J.M.F.C. Court No.5, Kolhapur. Both these cases are filed against

osk 3 of 6
903-WP-2954-2023 (CR).docx

the Respondent No.2 U/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Though, the parties in both these cases are the same, the cheques
were different and, therefore, two separate cases were filed.

2. During the course of proceeding in S.C.C.No.4377 of 2021, the
Respondent No.2-original accused made an application U/s.219 of
the Cr.p.c. for the prayer that the offence under the present case
and the offence under the other case i.e. S.C.C.No.4375 of 2021
may be charged together as per the provision of Section 219 of the
Cr.p.c. and be tried in single trial.

3. The petitioner-complainant opposed this application. However, the
learned J.M.FC. while passing the order dated 11.04.2022 below
Exhibit-15 in S.C.C.No.4377 of 2021 allowed that application and
directed that S.C.C.No.4377 of 2021 and S.C.C.No.4375 of 2021
be clubbed together.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, this order is not
correct in law. Section 219 of the Cr.p.c. is wrongly used. Though,
the Charges were same, the cheques were different and, therefore,
causes of action were totally different. The application of Section
219 of the Cr.p.c. is entirely misplaced. Therefore, it was not
permissible to try both these cases as one single trial. The
Negotiable Instruments Act provides for special procedure under
sections 142 and 143 of the said Act. The said sections start with
the non abstante clause mentioning that the procedure is
applicable notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973.

5. Considering these submissions, it is necessary to hear the other
side. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has made out a case for
grant of ad-interim relief.

osk 4 of 6
903-WP-2954-2023 (CR).docx

6. Hence, the following order:

ORDER

i) Issue Notice to the Respondents, returnable on 05.12.2023.

ii) Stand over to 05.12.2023.

iii) Till then, the order passed by the J.M.F.C., Court No.5,
Kolhapur, on 11.04.2022 below Exhibit-15 in S.C.C.No.4377
of 2021, is stayed.”

b. Order dated 11th December 2024:-

“1. Mr. Amit Icham, learned Counsel appears for the Respondent No.2
and seeks time.

2. A learned Single Judge by order dated 5th September 2023 has
stayed the order dated 11th April 2022 passed by the learned
JMFC, Court No.5, Kolhapur below Exhibit-15 in S.C.C. No.4375
of 2021. Thus, it is clear that the trial has not been stayed.

3. At the request of Mr. Amit Icham, learned Counsel appearing for
the Respondent No.2, stand over to 20th January 2025.

4. Till next date, ad-interim relief granted by the learned Single Judge
of stay to the said order dated 11th April 2022 shall remain in
operation.”

7. Mr. Bhushan Deshmukh, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, submits

that in view of the order dated 5 th September 2023 read with the order dated

11th December 2024 passed by this Court, the proceedings in S.C.C. No. 4375

of 2021 and S.C.C. No. 4377 of 2021, pending before the Court of the

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 5, Kolhapur (“Trial Court”), are

osk 5 of 6
903-WP-2954-2023 (CR).docx

being adjudicated separately. To clarify, he submits that the Trial Court is

considering both cases independently.

8. In view of the above statement made by Mr. Bhushan Deshmukh,

learned Advocate for the Petitioner, Mr Amit Icham, learned Advocate for

Respondent No. 2, submits that appropriate orders be passed.

9. Mr Amit Icham, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 2 submits that,

though not to be clubbed, the Trial Court be permitted to take up the

proceedings in S.C.C. Nos. 4377 of 2021 and 4375 of 2021 separately,

however, on the same day. Mr. Bhushan Deshmukh, learned Advocate for the

Petitioners, does not oppose this request.

10. For the reasons recorded in the order dated 5 th September 2023, these

Petitions are allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), consequently, the orders

impugned in both these petitions are set aside. It is clarified that the

proceedings in S.C.C. No. 4375 of 2021 and S.C.C. No. 4377 of 2021 shall be

decided separately.

11. Rule made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs.

12. Criminal Writ Petition No. 2953 of 2023 and Criminal Writ Petition No.

2954 of 2023 are disposed of.

Digitally signed
by OMKAR
SHIVAHAR
OMKAR KUMBHAKARN
SHIVAHAR
KUMBHAKARN Date:
[ ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J. ]
2026.10.07
10:36:21
+0530

osk 6 of 6

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…