1 902-APL 1122-21.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1122 OF 2021 Pradnya P. Bapat … Applicant V/s. 1. Dr. Mrs. Vidya Vishwas Sapatnekar through its power of Attorney Shri. Vishwas M. Sapatnekar 2. State of Maharashtra … Respondents ----- Mr. Indrajeet Kulkarni a/w Sucheta D. Ghaisas for the Applicant. Mr. Prithviraj S. Gole for Respondent No.1. Mr. Shahaji Shinde, ‘B’ Panel Counsel for Respondent No.2-State. ----- CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 28TH NOVEMBER 2025 P.C. : 1. This Application takes exception to the order dated 2nd September 2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Thane below Exhibit 1 in S.C.C No.2162 of 2016. 2. Respondent No.1 herein has filed the complaint case against the present Applicant and others for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1888 (for short ‘the NI Act’). By the order impugned the learned trial court has issued the process against the present Applicant for the said offence. 3. I have heard Learned Counsel for the Applicant and Learned Counsel for the contesting Respondent No.1. Mugdha 1 of 3 2 902-APL 1122-21.doc 4. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that according to the original complainant/Respondent No.1, he was partner in partnership firm M/s. Trikaya Hospitality. The cheque in question was issued to him by the firm towards his entitlement as retiring partner. It is submitted that there are no averments in the complaint that the Applicant was in charge of and was responsible to the firm for the conduct of the business of the firm. It is submitted that in absence of such averments, the trial court erred in issuing the process against the Applicant. The Learned Counsel for the Applicant has drawn my attention to the cheque in question. It is submitted that the cheque in question will show that it was issued in an individual capacity by one of the partners and not by the firm. 5. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the contesting Respondent No.1 submits that the cheque in question was issued pursuant to the Retirement Deed dated 18th December 2015. It is submitted that just to avoid limitation, alternate remedy available under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not availed and the present Application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. came to be filed against the impugned order after five years. It is submitted that now the complaint is at the stage of cross-examination and therefore the present Application may not be entertained. 6. It appears that the present Application came to be filed after five years of passing of the impugned order. After filing of the present Application in 2021, there was no interim order till 3rd April 2023. The examination-in-chief of the complainant is already over. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to entertain the present Application. The present Mugdha 2 of 3 3 902-APL 1122-21.doc Criminal Application is therefore dismissed. 7. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that to enable the Applicant to approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the present order, the proceedings before the trial court may be stayed for a period of two months. 8. Learned Counsel for the contesting Respondent No.1 submits that the complaint is of the year 2016 and therefore the proceedings before the trial court may not be stayed. 9. As the Applicant wants to approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court and therefore the proceedings before the trial court shall remain stayed for a period of two months. (N.R. BORKAR, J.) Mugdha 3 of 3