36-WP-4086-2019 (CR).doc Shubhada S Kadam IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 4086 OF 2019 Essa Merchant ...Petitioner/s Versus Salasar Balaji Infocome and ors. ...Respondent/s _________________________________________________________________ Mr. Satish Muley along with Mr. Mosin Naik and Mr. Aaron Dias, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. S. R. Agarkar, APP for Respondent No.4-State. _________________________________________________________________ CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 31st AUGUST, 2026. P.C. : 1. The challenge in this petition is to the impugned order dated 4th April 2019 passed by the learned I/C. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Mumbai, whereby the application for reconstruction was rejected. 2. It is contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had filed a complaint against respondents Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Court at Sikar, Rajasthan. Thereafter, in pursuance of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the amendment in the Negotiable Instruments Act, complaints from all over India were transferred to the Courts having jurisdiction where the SHUBHADA SHANKAR KADAM Digitally signed by SHUBHADA SHANKAR KADAM Date: 2026.09.03 12:32:57 +0530 36-WP-4086-2019 (CR).doc Shubhada S Kadam cheque was deposited. Accordingly, the complaint of the petitioner was transferred from the learned JMFC Court, Sikar, Rajasthan, to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 28th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, and was sent by registered post through the Indian Post by the Office of JMFC Court, Sikar, Rajasthan, vide postal receipt No. ACR116608922 IN on 2nd March 2016 at around 10:25 am and the same was informed to the petitioner's advocate. Learned counsel further submitted that as soon as the petitioner came to know about the transfer of the case, he started searching for the file through his advocate and searched all the registers where transferred matters were recorded. The petitioner also filed a complaint with the Government Post Office regarding the missing papers vide complaint No. 10007351148, wherein the petitioner received a reply that the case papers had already been delivered to the Esplanade Court on 5th March 2016 vide RL No. RMI2575681IN. After receiving the reply from respondent No.4, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate seeking reconstruction of the case, as the Court was unable to trace the file of the petitioner. Thereafter, the concerned Court orally directed the petitioner to file a complaint before the Administrative Department. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a complaint on 26th October 2017 but only a “Seen" remark was mentioned on his complaint. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for reconstruction of the 36-WP-4086-2019 (CR).doc Shubhada S Kadam complaint as the original papers were lost or misplaced in the Court. The learned Judge rejected the said application by merely observing that “they have not received any complaint from anywhere by this name”. Learned counsel further submitted that the postal receipts and photocopies of the cheque and the notice issued to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 show that the complaint was filed before the learned JMFC at Sikar, Rajasthan, and the postal receipts show that the documents were delivered to the Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Esplanade. The petitioner is not at fault but is suffering because the documents are not traceable. Hence, the petitioner be permitted to reconstruct the complaint, and requested to allow the petition. 3. Though respondents are served, none present for the respondent. 4. Learned APP for respondent No.4-State submitted that appropriate orders be passed. 5. I have heard both learned counsel, perused the impugned order. 6. It appears from the record that the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act was filed by the petitioner before the learned JMFC at Sikar, Rajasthan, and thereafter transferred to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Esplanade, Mumbai. The postal receipts show the transfer of the said papers. The photocopies of the papers produced on 36-WP-4086-2019 (CR).doc Shubhada S Kadam record, including the photocopy of memo of dishonour and the notice sent to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 after dishonour of the cheque, support the contention of the petitioner. Considering these facts, the petitioner can be permitted to reconstruct the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act. Hence, I pass following order: O R D E R 1. The petition is allowed. 2. The impugned order dated 4th April 2019 passed by the learned I/C. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Mumbai, is hereby quashed and set aside. 3. The petitioner is permitted to reconstruct the complaint against respondents Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 138 of the NI Act. 4. The petitioner is permitted to lead secondary evidence. 5. The issue of limitation, if any, shall not be raised. The petition is disposed of in above terms. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)