Bombay High Court

SHRIDHAR UDDHAVRAO KOLAPE AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISMISSED

Holding

The petition is dismissed as there is no reason to club the separate criminal cases with the Section 138 proceeding.

Summary

The petitioners sought a direction to join several criminal cases (Crimes Nos. 12/2015, 103/2016, 270/2017, 110/2015) with a private proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for a joint trial. The respondents informed the Court that separate trials were already underway in different courts, with charges framed in each case. The Court examined whether cognizance of the offences had already been taken and whether procedural law permitted such joinder. It held that since each case was already before a competent court with charges framed, there was no justification to club them with the Section 138 proceeding. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether multiple criminal cases can be clubbed with a private proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for a joint trial.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) Act
Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 138

Subjects

criminal procedure
joinder of cases
Section 138
Negotiable Instruments Act
cognizance
trial

Judgment

                                     (1)
                                                       919 Cri.WP-426.2023.odt
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

      919 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 426 OF 2023

       SHRIDHAR UDDHAVRAO KOLAPE AND ANOTHER
                       VERSUS
        THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Ms. Punita Jagatkar, Advocate holding for Mr. Avinash Phad,
                      Advocate for the petitioners.
           Mr. S.J. Salgare, A.P.P. for respondents-State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
                            VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.

                    DATED      : 16th September, 2026

Per Court :

1.    Though the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time

to take instructions, but the learned APP, on instructions,

submits that in respect of Crime No. 12/2015 and Crime No.

103/2016 registered with Kinwat Police Station a trial before

J.M.F.C. Kinwat is going on after framing of charge in the

aforesaid crimes. He further submits that in respect of Crime

No.270/2017 one M.P.I.D. case is pending before the Special

Judge, Nanded wherein charge is also framed. So far as Crime

No.110/2015       is   concerned,          according    to   learned    APP,

Additional Sessions Judge, Nilanga is conducting the trial

under M.P.I.D. Act.
                                   (2)
                                                919 Cri.WP-426.2023.odt
2.    Under such circumstances, when the cognizance of the

aforesaid crimes are already taken by the separate courts, we

do not see any reason to club these crimes alongwith one

private proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act for joint trial.



3.    In view of above, the petition stands dismissed.




(VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV)                  (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
       JUDGE                                     JUDGE




VD_Dhirde

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…