M/S. PAGADANDI EDUCATION FOUNDATION AND ORS.versusM/S. JIVARTNA MEDI TREAT PVT. LTD., AND ANR.

                      Supriya                                                          WP-4084-2022.doc
                                                            S




                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                             CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                         CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4084 OF 2022
SUPRIYA
PRAMOD                1. M/s. Pagadandi Education Foundation
JAWARE
Digitally signed by
                         A Registered Charitable Trust
SUPRIYA
PRAMOD JAWARE
Date: 2026.09.11
19:15:27 +0530
                         Through its Managing Trustee
                         Mr. Vivek Omprakash Chandel
                         Having its office at Yashwant Niwas,
                         1st Floor, N. C. Kelkar Road,
                         Dadar (West), Mumbai -400 028

                      2. Mr. Vivek Omprakash Chandel
                         Age : 50 years, Occupation : Business,
                         An Indian inhabitant,
                         Having address at 91/3, Shashiprabha,
                         Goradia Nagar, Ghatkopar (East),
                         Mumbai -400 077.

                      3. Mr. Tushar Chhotalal Joshi
                         Age : 58 years, Occupation : Business
                         An Indian inhabitant,
                         C-5, 2nd Floor, Laram Center,
                         M. A. Road, Andheri (W),
                         Mumbai 400 058
                                                                                     … Petitioners
                                V/s.

                      1. M/s. Jivartna Medi Treat Pvt. Ltd.
                         (A company incorporated under the
                          Companies Act, 1956)
                          Having its address at 2/11, Hira Kunj, Sane Guruji Marg,
                          Tardeo, Mumbai – 400 034.
                          Through its Director, Mr. Jay Himat Gala
                          Aged- 45 years, Occ.- Business,
                          An Indian inhabitant,
                          Resident of Tardeo, Mumbai.

                      2. The State of Maharashtra
                                                                                     … Respondents
                                                  ______________________

                                                                                               1/12
Supriya                                                           WP-4084-2022.doc



Mr. Nitin Rai a/w Mr. Yash Desai i/by Mr. Ramchandra Rane for the
Petitioners.
Mr. Jatin Karia (Shah) a/w Adv. Snehankita Munji, Dipti Jatin Karia, Shraddha
Kamble, Vaishnavi Jhaveri for Respondent No.1.
Mrs. Manisha Tidke, A.P.P. for Respondent -State.
                            ______________________
                           CORAM : RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.
                   RESERVED ON : 10th JULY 2026.
              PRONOUNCED ON : 11th SEPTEMBER 2026.
JUDGMENT :-

1)          By the present Petition, filed under Article 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India and Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

(for short ‘CrPC’) (now 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023),

the Petitioners seek to challenge the Order dated 15 th October 2022 passed by

the Sessions Court, Mumbai in Criminal M.A. No. 1472 of 2022 in Criminal

Revision Application thereby rejecting the Petitioners Application for

condonation of delay. The Petitioners further seek to also set aside the

impugned Order dated 15th October 2022 passed by Sessions Court, Mumbai

thereby rejecting Application bearing No. Criminal M.A./1473/2022 to stay

the proceedings i.e. C.C. No.40/SS/2022 pending before Metropolitan

Magistrate, 7th Court, Bhoiwada, Mumbai wherein by Order dated 21 st

February 2022 process was issued against the Petitioners under Section 138

r/w 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(NI Act).

2)          Heard, Mr. Nitin Rai for the Petitioners, Mr. Jatin Karia (Shah) for

Respondent No.1, Mrs. Manisha Tidke, A.P.P for Respondent.


                                                                          2/12
Supriya                                                              WP-4084-2022.doc


3)          Some of the relevant facts of the case are as under: -

3.1)        The Respondent No.1/original Complainant is a company

incorporated under the Companies Act. The Petitioner No.1 is a non-

government organization registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The

Petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 are the original Accused Nos. 1 to 4 in C.C.

No.40/SS/2022 pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 7 th Court

at Bhoiwada. The Respondent No.1 filed a complaint under Section 138 read

with 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 being C.C. No.40/SS/2022

pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 7 th Court at Bhoiwada,

Mumbai. Process was issued by Order dated 21st February 2022.

3.2)        The Petitioners being original Accused Nos. 1 to 4 challenged the

said Order of issuance of process by filing Criminal Revision Application

before the Sessions Court. The Petitioners also preferred an application for

condonation of delay being Criminal M.A./1472/2022 and an application

seeking to stay proceedings being Criminal M.A. No. 1473/2022. That, in

filing of the said Criminal Revision Application, there was a delay of 72 days.

The learned Sessions Court by Order dated 15 th October 2022 rejected the

Petitioners Application for condonation of delay. Further by Order dated 15 th

October 2022, the Sessions Court was pleased to reject the Application for

stay of proceedings of C.C. No.40/SS/2022. It is these Orders that, the

Petitioner has sought to challenged.

4)          Mr. Nitin Rai, learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioners


                                                                             3/12
Supriya                                                            WP-4084-2022.doc


submits that: -

4.1)           The Sessions Court failed to consider the fact that, on 4th May

2022, the Metropolitan Magistrate, 7th Court, Bhoiwada, had issued a bailable

warrant against the Petitioner and adjourned the matter to 18 th July 2022.

That, the Petitioners came to know of the bailable warrant and of the

pendency of the C.C. No.40/SS/2022 before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 7 th

Court at Bhoiwada only on 22 nd June 2022. That, on 23 rd June 2022,

Petitioners obtained certified copies of the entire proceedings. That, due to the

aforesaid facts, Revision Application could not be filed within a period of 90

days. That, there is no deliberate or intentional delay on the part of the

Petitioners. That, if the period of limitation is calculated from the date of

knowledge i.e. 22nd June 2022, then there is no delay in filing the Revision

Application.

4.2)           The Sessions Court has rejected the Application inter alia on the

ground that, the certified copies of the impugned Order passed by the learned

Metropolitan Magistrate in respect of the C.C. No.40/SS/2022 was not placed

on record and that, the Petitioner had not disclosed the exact date on which

they came to know about the passing of the impugned Order. On the said

basis, it was erroneously concluded that, the Petitioner had not come to the

Court with clean hands.

4.3)           In the Application for condonation of delay, the Applicant has

specifically stated that, on 22nd June 2022 they came to know about the


                                                                           4/12
Supriya                                                           WP-4084-2022.doc


issuance of bailable warrant and of the pendency of the C.C. No.40/SS/2022.

That, on the very next date, the Petitioners obtained the certified copy of the

entire proceedings. That, the Petitioner had in fact clearly stated the date of

knowledge.

4.4)           Learned Advocate for the Petitioner relied on the following

Judgments in support of his submissions:

(i)       Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State (NCT of

Delhi) Vs. Ahmed Jaan reported in 2008 AIR SCW 5692, to submit that if

refusal to condone delay results in a grave miscarriage of justice, the delay

should be condoned.

(ii)           The judgment of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of

Jitendra Alias Dhansu Vs. Laxmi Narayan Agarwal reported in AIR OnLine

2018 All 345, particularly paragraph 1 thereof to contend that, Courts should

be liberal in condoning the delay as no litigant would stand to benefit by

deliberately delaying the filing of a proceedings and prejudicing his case

before the appellate Court.

5)             Mr. Jatin Karia, the learned Advocate for the Respondents

submitted that :-

5.1)           The intention of the Petitioners is to delay the criminal

prosecution. That, the Petitioners have given their registered address as B-

822, 8th Floor, Pranik Chambers, Saki Naka, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 072.

The copy of the complaint along with all the exhibits was duly served upon


                                                                          5/12
Supriya                                                           WP-4084-2022.doc


each of the Petitioners along with the service of summons on 20 th April 2022

at the said address. That, the summons was served on the correct address and

the address was not disputed by the Petitioners till date.

5.2)         The contention of the Petitioners that, they have not received the

summons is completely incorrect and false statement. That, the warrants were

issued against the Petitioners for securing their presence by the trial Court.

Warrants are issued only after valid service of the summons. That, despite the

service of summons in April 2022, the Petitioners willfully and deliberately

chose not to appear before the trial Court. No Application for certified copies

was made till 22nd June 2022. That, the delay on the part of the Petitioners are

willful and intentional.

5.3)         The Petitioners have made incorrect and misleading statements in

the Application for condonation of delay. The bailable warrant was issued on

4th May 2022. On 18th July 2022, the Petitioners instead of appearing before

the Court for cancellation of the bailable warrant appeared through their

Advocates and gave an undertaking that they will be personally present on the

next date. Neither did the Petitioners apply for cancellation of warrant nor

appeared in person before the Court. The matter was then adjourned to 2 nd

August 2022, when the Advocate for the Petitioners remained present but the

Petitioners were absent and did not apply for cancellation of warrant.

5.4)         The Petitioners have raised frivolous and baseless grounds. That,

the Petitioners have suppressed relevant and vital material and have not


                                                                          6/12
Supriya                                                          WP-4084-2022.doc


approached the Court with clean hands.

6)           Mrs. Manisha Tidke, learned A.P.P. appearing for the Respondent -

State adopted the arguments advanced by Mr. Jatin Karia, learned Advocate

appearing for the Respondent No.1.

7)           Perused the entire record. The Application for condonation of

delay would indicate that, the Petitioners have only stated that after the

process was issued on 21st February 2022, the matter was adjourned to 4 th

May 2022. It is the contention of the Petitioners that, on 22 nd June 2022, the

Petitioners came to know about the issuance of bailable warrant and the

pendency of the C.C. No.40/SS/2022 before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 7 th

Court, Bhoiwada, Mumbai. On this ground, the Application seeking

condonation of delay has been filed. The summons were served to the

Petitioners on 20th April 2022 and on 4th May 2022, the Metropolitan

Magistrate, 7th Court, Bhoiwada, Mumbai issued bailable warrants against the

Petitioners. It is only after the issuance of summons and non-appearance of a

party that bailable warrants are issued. The matter was then adjourned to 18 th

July 2022.

8)           Perusal of the record would indicate that, the bailable warrant

was issued against the original Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 on 4 th May 2022. On

18th July 2022 the Advocate for the Petitioners was present in Court and filed

the vakalatnama at Exhibit-8 and an undertaking at Exhibit-9 on behalf of the

Petitioners. The matter was then adjourned to 2 nd August 2022. On 2nd August


                                                                         7/12
Supriya                                                          WP-4084-2022.doc


2022, the Advocate for the original Complainant filed an Application for

issuance of non-bailable warrants against the Petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4 at the

new address. The Petitioners remained absent and their Advocate filed an

Application seeking adjournment. The matter was then adjourned to 26 th

September 2022. On 6th October 2023 again the Petitioners remained absent

and the Advocate for the Petitioners filed an exemption Application. The plea

on behalf of the original Accused Nos. 1 to 3 was recorded.

9)          On 18th July 2022 the Advocate for the Petitioners filed the

vakalatnama on behalf of the Petitioners and also an undertaking. On 2 nd

August 2022, the Advocate of the Petitioners filed an application seeking an

adjournment. This indicates that, the Petitioners had appeared before the

learned trial Court through their Advocates but did not take any steps for

cancellation of the warrant. The Application for condonation of delay has

been filed on 2nd August 2022. No steps had been taken between 22 nd June

2022 to 2nd August 2022. The delay application was filed only on 2 nd August

2022. This conduct of the Petitioners indicates that the intention of the

Petitioners is to delay and frustrate the ongoing proceedings.

10)         Learned Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 had contended that,

the bailable warrants were issued only after verification that the summons

have been duly served. The Order of issuance of process is dated 21 st February

2022 and the bailable warrants have been issued on 4 th May 2022 after

ensuring that the summons is served. In this view of the matter, the contention


                                                                         8/12
Supriya                                                          WP-4084-2022.doc


of the Petitioners that they got knowledge of the issuance of bailable warrant

only on 22nd June 2022 prima facie does not appear to be correct. In the

Application for condonation of delay, the Petitioners have not stated the

manner in which they came to know about the issuance of the bailable

warrant and the pendency of the case bearing C.C. No.40/SS/2022 before the

Metropolitan Magistrate, 7th Court, Bhoiwada.

11)         I also find that, the Petitioners in their Application for

condonation of delay have contended that, the notice under Section 138 of

the NI Act was not served upon or received by them. The record indicates

that, the Petitioners through their Advocates vide notice dated 14 th December

2021 have replied to the notice issued under Section 138 of the NI Act. The

said statement, in the Application for condonation of delay prima facie

appears to be incorrect, misleading and false. During the course of the

hearing, the Petitioners were specifically asked as to how the Petitioners got

knowledge of the issuance of bailable warrant and the pendency of the

complaint U/s 138 of the NI Act. The Petitioners have chosen not to give any

explanation in respect of the same. The service of the summons and the

appearance before the Court of the Magistrate through the advocate has not

been disputed.

12)         In any event, the Petitioners have appeared before the trial Court

through their Advocate on 18th July 2022 and 2nd August 2022. The Petitioners

have knowledge of the proceedings. The Application for condonation of delay


                                                                         9/12
Supriya                                                             WP-4084-2022.doc


is only filed on 2nd August 2022 when the Complainant had already served the

summons and the bailable warrant at the new address. The conduct of the

Petitioner is prima facie indicative of the fact that, the Petitioner is trying to

delay the proceedings.

13)          The record would indicate that, the Petitioners are avoiding to

appear before the trial Court and seek to take time/adjourn the matter on one

ground or the other. This conduct prima facie indicates that, an attempt has

been made to delay and frustrate the entire criminal proceedings. The record

indicates that, the complaint is of the year 2022 and the plea of the accused

has been recorded on 6th October 2023. That, despite of giving an undertaking

to the trial Court of appearing before the Court, the Petitioners/Accused have

failed to appear before the trial Court and initiate the process of cancellation

of the bailable warrants. Due to the said conduct, non-bailable warrants have

been issued against the Petitioners.

14)          The Petitioners have not explained even though an opportunity

was given as to how they came to know of the issuance of the bailable warrant

and the filing of the complaint. Only a bald statement is made in respect of

knowledge. No details have been given in respect of the knowledge. It appears

that, the Petitioners have not disclosed the true and correct facts. Even I find

that, there is no ground or sufficient reason mentioned in the Application for

allowing the condonation of delay.

15)          Perusal of the Order dated 15 th October 2022 clearly records a


                                                                           10/12
Supriya                                                              WP-4084-2022.doc


finding that, the material on record does not indicate as to in what manner

and which of the Petitioners came to know on 22 nd June 2022 of the issuance

of the bailable warrant against them. The Order records that, no reason has

been given by the Petitioners for not appearing before the Court for getting

the bailable warrants cancelled. On the basis of the said facts, the Court has

come to the conclusion that the Petitioners have not approached the Court

with clean hands but with dishonest intention to delay the proceedings

pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate. In this background, the Petitioner

was asked to explain the delay and the manner in which the Petitioner got

knowledge. On being repeatedly asked, no further details or explanation is

offered by the Petitioners.

16)          This Court is conscious of the fact that, an Application for

condonation of delay should be considered liberally and as long as reasonable

and sufficient cause is shown for the delay, the same should be condoned. At

the same time, it is also equally well settled that, a litigant who sleeps over his

rights, or does not place before the Court the complete, true and correct facts

and then seeks condonation of delay without giving any sufficient or

reasonable cause for the delay or a litigant who misleads the Court while

seeking a prayer for condonation of delay ought not to be shown any leniency.

From the facts of the present case and the conduct of the Petitioners it appears

that the Petitioners are misusing the legal process and Court mechanism to

delay the entire criminal proceedings. The matter pertains to a prosecution


                                                                            11/12
Supriya                                                           WP-4084-2022.doc


under the NI Act. The Object of the said Act is to provide for special procedure

in cases where the obligation under the instrument is not discharged. It relates

to financial matter. Delaying proceedings under the NI Act will prove counter

productive to the objects of the NI Act. The parameters to be applied in such

cases would be different. A litigant cannot be permitted to take advantage of

his own wrong nor should he be permitted to use the legal process and

remedy available in law as tools to delay and frustrate the entire proceedings

and the rights of the other party.

17)          In the facts of the present case, it appears that, the Petitioners

have not disclosed all the relevant and material facts. Further the conduct of

the Petitioners in appearing before the trial Court through the Advocates,

seeking time, filing undertakings and then filing a Revision Application and

seeking condonation of delay without disclosing true and correct facts is a

conduct which cannot be accepted. In any event, no sufficient cause or reason

is given by the Petitioner. In view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the

opinion that, the Petitioners have failed to make out any ground or a sufficient

cause for seeking condonation of delay. This not a fit case to exercise the

powers under Section 482 of the CrPC or to interfere in the matter/ with the

Session Court’s Orders.

18)          In view of the above, Petition is dismissed.



                                       (RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.)


                                                                         12/12