31 WPCR-648-2025 final-1.doc Meena IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.67 OF 2025 ROSARIO LUKA DSOUZA ... PETITIONER Versus STATE OF GOA THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AND 2 ORS ... RESPONDENTS Mr. Tabish Moomen, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S.G. Bhobe, Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1. Ms. Kalpa Govekar, Advocate for Respondent No.2. CORAM:- VALMIKI MENEZES, J. DATED :- 29th September, 2025 ORAL ORDER: 1. Registry to waive oice objections and register the matter. 2. his is a petition challenging the order dated 09.06.2025, whereby the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panaji, F Court, in Criminal Complaint No.485 of 2020, has dismissed an application under sub-section 2 of Section 145 of the NI Act iled by the Accused; the accused is the petitioner in the present petition. Page 1 of 4 31 WPCR-648-2025 final-1.doc 3. he main contention raised by the Accused, both before the trial Court and before this Court is that, though he was a Director of the Accused Company and a signatory to the cheque which is the, subject matter of the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act, he was not in possession of the reply to the notice dated 30.10.2020, sent by the complainant demanding payment of the amount under the dishonoured cheque. During the course of the arguments, the learned Advocate for the Petitioner has produced a photocopy of a reply dated 11.11.2020 purportedly sent by the Director Rozario D’souza (the petitioner herein) and by the accused company, who is Respondent No.2 herein. 4. It is further submitted that the reply to the notice refers to the complaint, but was not produced by the complainant before the trial Court. It is further contended that the Petitioner did not have a copy of the reply in its possession, as the original is with the complainant, but has now obtained a photocopy of the reply from the then Advocate Shri Devendra Singh, engaged by the Accused to reply to the notice. He submits that the main defence taken in the reply was that the Complainant had breached an Agreement dated 15.09.2019 and an agreement dated 18.12.2019 by refusing to provide a minimum guaranteed job work of 3000 metric tonnes for a ishing season of that relevant time. He submits that the Accused 31 WPCR-648-2025 final-1.doc would like to examine the complainant on the breaches of the contract, which would be a plausible defence raised by him. 5. On perusing the application under sub-Section 2 of Section 145 of the Act, iled before the Magistrate, the same contains only 3 paragrpahs, none of which raise any plausible defence, much less the defences now sought to be argued, which were obviously known to the Accused, who are directors of the accused company when the application was iled. It is not the Petitioner’s case that all these defences have been speciically raised even in their reply in the notice under section 138 of the Act. here is not a single averment made in the application under Section 145 stating that the Petitioner was not aware of the contents of the reply iled to the statutory notice, nor does the application relect any of the defences, claimed to have been raised in the said reply to the notice of Advocate Devendra Singh. 6. On perusing the impugned order dated 09.06.2022 no inirmity can be found in the order. Whilst passing the impugned order the learned Magistrate has considered all the relevant case law both, of the Supreme Court and of this Court that underlines the necessity for making speciic averments in an application under sub- Section 2 of Section 145 to convince the Court that the defence raised is a plausible and justiies granting leave to the Accused to 31 WPCR-648-2025 final-1.doc cross-examine the Complainant. he Magistrate has correctly applied the law which is referred to in his judgment, to the facts of the case and concluded that there were no averments made in the application to justify grant of leave to cross-examine the complainant. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, no inirmity can be found with the impugned order which calls for interference in supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. Hence, the petition stands dismissed. No costs. VALMIKI MENEZES, J. Signed by: MEENA VISHAL BHOIR Designation: Private Secretary Date: 04/10/2025 14:57:40