Bombay High Court

NURUDDIN BADRUDDIN AJANIversusFAYYAZ AMIRALI SHROFF AND ANR

Decided: 16 September 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The writ petition was allowed to be withdrawn, leaving the order of the Judicial Magistrate open to challenge in separate proceedings.

Summary

The petitioner Arjun Vitthal Kudhekar filed a writ petition seeking to quash a complaint (CC No.966/SS/2022) and the order of a Metropolitan Magistrate that had issued process under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner later withdrew the writ petition, stating he would challenge a subsequent order dated 19 August 2026, issued by a Judicial Magistrate under Section 143-A of the same Act directing payment of 20% of the disputed cheque amount. The High Court allowed the withdrawal of the writ petition but clarified that the petitioner remains free to file separate proceedings against the later order. No merits of the Section 143-A order were examined, and the court expressly kept those contentions open for future litigation. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed on the basis of withdrawal, without prejudice to further challenges.

Issues considered

Whether the writ petition seeking quashing of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act should be entertained.
Whether the petitioner may withdraw the writ petition and pursue separate proceedings against the order under Section 143-A.

Legislation cited

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — s. 138, 143-A

Subjects

writ petition
Negotiable Instruments Act
Section 138
Section 143-A
withdrawal of petition
separate proceedings
cheque bounce

Judgment

                                                                               35-WP-3406-2025.doc


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

ARJUN                                     WRIT PETITION NO.3406 OF 2025
VITTHAL
KUDHEKAR              Nuruddin Badruddin Ajani                                 ...Petitioner
Digitally signed by           Versus
ARJUN VITTHAL
KUDHEKAR
Date: 2026.09.17
                      Fayyaz Amirali Shroff & Anr.                             ...Respondents
12:47:18 +0530
                                                     ——————
                      Mr. Siddhesh Borkar a/w Prachi Parte & Harsh Parte, for the Petitioner.
                      Mr. Suraj Dessai Almeida, for Respondent No.1.
                      Ms. M. R. Tidke, APP, for Respondent No.2-State.
                                                     ——————

                                                              Coram: Madhav J. Jamdar, J.
                                                              Date: 16 September 2026
                      P.C.:

                      1.       The relief sought in this Writ Petition is seeking quashing of

                      Complaint being CC No.966/SS/2022. Resultantly, in effect, the

                      Petitioner is challenging the Order dated 23rd June 2022 passed by the

                      learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 63th Court, Andheri, Mumbai issuing

                      process under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“NI

                      Act”).

                      2.       Mr. Borkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, on

                      instructions, states that, the Petitioner is withdrawing this Writ Petition.

                      However, he states that, subsequently, the Order dated 19th August

                      2026 has been passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class,

                      63th Court, Andheri, Mumbai under Section 143-A of the NI Act,


                      Arjun                               1
                                                          35-WP-3406-2025.doc


directing payment of 20% of disputed cheque amount. He states that

the Petitioner will file a separate proceedings.

3.      Accordingly, Writ Petition is allowed to be withdrawn.

4.      However, it is clarified that the Petitioner can file separate

proceedings challenging the said Order dated 19th August 2026.

5.      It is made clear that the contentions with respect to the said

Order dated 19th August 2026 are not examined and all contentions in

that behalf of are expressly kept open.



                                                   [Madhav J. Jamdar, J.]




Arjun                               2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.