M/S WHEEL MAGNETS THR ITS AUTH PARTNERversusANIKET NAIK

2026:BHC-GOA:2002
                                         5-WPCR-3-2026



                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

                        CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3 OF 2026



                Wheel Magnets, thr. its Auth. Partner            … Petitioner

                                   Versus

                Aniket Naik                                      …Respondent



                Mr Jatin Ramaiya, Advocate for the Petitioner.
                Mr Prashant Agrawal, Advocate with Mr. Amogh Vaingankar,
                Advocate for Respondent.


                               CORAM:       S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J

                               DATED:       7th OCTOBER 2026



                    ORDER.:

                1.     The Petitioner impugns Order dated 01.12.2025 passed by

                Chief Judicial Magistrate ‘A’ Court, Merces-Goa, in Criminal

                Case No.OA/311/NIA/2020/A thereby allowing Application

                below Exhibit D-31 granting permission to Respondent accused

                to cross-examine the Petitioner to the extent of defence

                mentioned in the Application.
                                                 1   4
                          5-WPCR-3-2026

2.    The parties are hereinafter referred to as per their original

status in the Complaint. The Petitioner/original Complainant

instituted proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881 alleging that the Complainant appointed

Respondent/accused as Sub-dealer for Marcel region.           The

accused commenced placing orders for motorcycles with the

complainant. He was given credit facility by the Complainant.

He procured 112 motorcycles from the Complainant between

2018 to 2019. The liability of around Rs.56,15,360/- (Rupees

Fifty Six Lakhs Fifteen Thousand Three Hundred and Sixty

only) was accumulated against the accused. Despite selling the

motorcycles and scooters supplied by Complainant, he failed to

clear outstanding dues.     The accused voluntarily admitted

liability vide his Affidavit-cum-Declaration dated 13.06.2019

and issued Cheque towards discharge of his liability. However,

on presentation, Cheque has been dishonoured with remark

‘insufficient funds’. The Complainant issued a Demand Notice,

which was not replied by the accused. Eventually, Complainant

approached the Magistrate and filed criminal case.




                                  2   4
                          5-WPCR-3-2026

3.   The accused on his appearance before JMFC filed

application Exhibit D-31 under Section 145(2) of Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881.        By impugned Order, Learned

Magistrate allowed the application and permitted him to cross-

examine the Complainant.


4.   Mr. Jatin Ramaiya, Learned Advocate appearing for

Petitioner would submit that it was obligatory on the part of

Magistrate to delve into the probability of defence raised by the

accused.    Unless accused demonstrates specific probable

defence and satisfies Magistrate that his defence is not

moonshine or illusionary, the Magistrate cannot exercise

discretion under Section 145(2).      Per contra, Mr. Prashant

Agrawal, Learned Advocate appearing for Respondent supports

the impugned Order.


5.   Having considered submissions advanced by Learned

Counsel for respective parties and upon consideration of the

submissions advanced, it can be observed that the accused

raised a defence that there is no legally enforceable debt

and Complainant is not entitled to recover the amount of

Rs. 56,15,360/- (Rupees Fifty Six Lakhs Fifteen Thousand Three
                                  3   4
                                                      5-WPCR-3-2026

                           Hundred and Sixty only) along with interest. The Complaint

                           itself demonstrates that the accused had issued five Cheques of

                           Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh only) each. However, in the

                           month     of   June,   2019,   accused     paid   an   amount   of

                           Rs.12,50,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakh Fifty Thousand only)

                           towards part liability and then issued two Cheques of

                           Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh only) each.


                           6.     The impugned Order shows that the Learned Magistrate

                           considered probable defence available to the accused,

                           particularly, as regards the legally enforceable debt, as there was

                           no clarity as to what amount was actually due after accused

                           made the payment. Learned Magistrate has, therefore, rightly

                           exercised discretion under Section 145(2) and granted

                           conditional leave to defend. This Court finds no jurisdictional

                           error in exercise of discretion by the Magistrate.


                           7.     In result, the Writ Petition stands rejected.




                                                              4   4




Signed by: MARIA SUZANA REBELLO
Designation: Personal Assistant
Date: 08/10/2026 17:01:36