MOHAMED ALI FURNITUREWALAversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                                                                                  18-WP-3330-2026.doc


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                           WRIT PETITION NO.3330 OF 2026

ARJUN                 Mohamed Ali Furniturewala                                  ...Petitioner
VITTHAL                       Versus
KUDHEKAR              The State of Maharashtra & Anr.                            ...Respondents
Digitally signed by
ARJUN VITTHAL                                    ——————
KUDHEKAR
Date: 2026.09.19
                      Mr. Pradyumna D. Sharma (Through Video Conferencing) a/w Gautam P.
16:54:55 +0530
                      Khobragade & Nishi Jain, for the Petitioner.
                      Mr. S. S. Ghag, APP, for the Respondent-State.
                      Mr. Jaikumar N. Shiradhonkar a/w Ankit Saxena, for Respondent No.2.
                                                       ——————
                                                          Coram: Madhav J. Jamdar, J.
                                                          Date: 17 September 2026
                      P.C.:

                      1.      Heard Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner

                      and Mr. Shiradhonkar, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2.

                      2.      By this Writ Petition, the challenge is to the legality and validity of

                      the Order dated 29th April 2026 passed by the learned JMFC, 63rd

                      Court, Andheri, Mumbai, below Exhibit-13 in CC No.1776/SS/2019

                      (“impugned Order”). By the impugned Order, an application filed under

                      Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“NI Act”) by

                      Respondent No.2-Original Complainant was allowed, and the Petitioner,

                      i.e., the Accused was directed to pay 20% of the disputed cheque

                      amount to the Complainant as interim compensation under Section

                      143A(1) of the NI Act within 60 days from the date of the Order.



                      Arjun                                 1
                                                       18-WP-3330-2026.doc


3.      Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the

Petitioner had filed a detailed Reply and the said Reply was not taken

into consideration by the learned Judge while passing the impugned

Order. He relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Rakesh Ranjan

Shrivastava v. The State Of Jharkhand 1. He submits that Respondent

No.2 is a money lender and is carrying on the business of money lending

without obtaining a licence under the provisions of the Money Lending

Act and, therefore, the impugned Order should be quashed and set

aside. He also relied on FIR/CR No.2112 of 2025 registered with Bandra

Police Station, Mumbai City, for the offences punishable under Sections

406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, lodged by Respondent No.2

against the Petitioner, wherein it is accepted that the amount due is

only Rs.78,64,366/-.

4.      On the other hand, Mr. Shiradhonkar, learned Counsel for

Respondent No.2, supported the impugned Order. He submits that

Respondent No.2 is not a money lender but had invested the amount in

the business of the Petitioner, as the Petitioner had promised that the

said investment would get substantial profits. He further submits that

the learned Trial Court had passed the Order in accordance with law

and, therefore, no interference in the jurisdiction of this Court under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the

1    (2024) 4 SCC 419 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 309


Arjun                                      2
                                                            18-WP-3330-2026.doc


Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) is warranted.

5.       Perusal of the Complaint shows that the Complaint filed under

Section 138 of the NI Act, has been filed on account of the dishonour of

a cheque. Paragraph Nos.9 and 10 of the Complaint are relevant, which

read as under:

        “9.     I say that from time to time, I have invested
        Rs.1,79,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Seventy Nine Lakhs Only)
        and the Accused has returned Rs. 1,20,00,000/- (Rupees One
        Crore Twenty Lakhs Only) from time to time and Rs.
        59,00,000/-(Rupees Fifty Nine Lakhs Only) and profits (which
        includes assured returns) thereon are outstanding. I say that
        as on 31/03/2019, the total outstanding amount due and
        payable by the Accused to me excluding assured profit but
        including assured minimum return is Rs.77,64,366/- (Rupees
        Seventy Seven Lakhs Sixty Four Thousand Three Hundred and
        Sixty Six Only).

        10.     I say that that on 8th April, 2019 when I presented the
        cheque issued by the Accused by filling the aforesaid
        outstanding amount, to my banker State Bank of India,
        Andheri (West) Branch, Mumbai, the same is however,
        returned unpaid, dishonoured with remarks "Drawer signature
        differs". I have received the said dishonoured cheque dated
        31/03/2019 along with dishonor memo dated 9th April, 2019,
        on 15th April, 2019. Copies of the dishonoured Cheque and
        dishonor Memo dated 9th April, 2019 are hereto annexed and
        marked as Exhibit-' B' and 'B-1' respectively.”


6.       Thus, it is the case of the Complainant, i.e., Respondent No.2, that

an amount of Rs.1,79,00,000/- was invested by Respondent No.2 and,

after excluding the payments made by the Petitioner/Accused, the

outstanding amount as on 31st March 2019 was Rs.77,64,366/-. In the



Arjun                                  3
                                                         18-WP-3330-2026.doc


FIR, pursuant to which CR No.212 of 2025 was registered by Respondent

No.2 against the Petitioner, the same amount is also reflected. As

regards the contention that the transaction was in the nature of money

lending and that Respondent No.2 had no licence to conduct such

business, the same will have to be decided at the stage of trial, as

Respondent No.2 has specifically stated in the Complaint that, from

time to time, he had invested an amount of Rs.1,79,00,000/- in the

business of the Petitioner on the assurance of profits, and that an

amount of Rs.77,64,366/- remained outstanding. The decision of the

Supreme Court in Rakesh Ranjan (supra), on which learned Counsel for

the Petitioner has relied, has held that when the Court deals with an

application under Section 143A of the NI Act, the Court will have to

prima facie evaluate the merits of the case made out by the

Complainant and the merits of the defence pleaded by the accused in

the reply to the application under Sub-Section (1) of Section 143A, and

only if the Complainant makes out a prima facie case, a direction can be

issued to pay interim compensation.

7.      Perusal of the record shows that a specific case has been made

out by Respondent No.2-Complainant that he had invested the amount

in the business of the Petitioner. It is an admitted position that at least

an amount of Rs.77,64,366/- was outstanding. The said cheque was

dated 31st March 2019 and was dishonoured.


Arjun                               4
                                                         18-WP-3330-2026.doc


8.      Perusal of the Reply filed by the Petitioner shows that, except for

the contention that Respondent No.2 was carrying out a money-lending

business and the contentions regarding the manner in which an

application under Section 143A of the NI Act is to be dealt with, no

other substantial defence has been raised. The cheque is of the year

2019, whereas the impugned Order is dated 29th April 2026, by which

the the Petitioner has been directed to pay 20% of the disputed cheque

amount as interim compensation.

9.      Thus, by considering overall facts and circumstances, no case is

made out for grant of any relief under the jurisdiction of this Court

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of

BNSS.

10.     Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.


                                                  [Madhav J. Jamdar, J.]




Arjun                                5