P.H. JAYANI 05 IA667.2026.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 667 OF 2026 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2502 OF 2009 1. Prashant K. Mehta 2. Rajeev K. Mehta In the matter between :- Splendour Gems Ltd., Mumbai and Ors. …. Applicants …. Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra and anr. …Respondents Mr. Subhash Jha a/w. Ms. Minal Chandnani, Ms. Jyoti Ghag, Mr. Shailesh Prajapati and Mr. Rajesh Dodia i/b. Dua Associates for the Applicants in IA/667/2026. Mr. Vinod Chate, APP for the Respondent No.1 – State. Mr. Zoeb Cutlerywala a/w. Mr. Vikram Kamath, Mr. Advait Shukla, Mr. Prakhar Dixit i/b. Phoenix Legal for Respondent No.2. CORAM: SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J. DATED : 27th JULY, 2026 P.C. :- 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Mr. Cutlerywala tendered an Affidavit-in-reply. It is taken on record. 2. Present Interim Application seeks condonation of 30 days delay in filing said Application and restoration of aforesaid Petition which came to be dismissed for want of prosecution vide Order dated 6th May, 2025. 3. The aforesaid Petition was filed impugning an Order dated 14th September 2001, in Criminal Complaint No.609/S/2001, passed by 40th Court of the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan 27th JULY, 2026 P.H. JAYANI 05 IA667.2026.DOC Magistrate, Girgaum, Mumbai. Thereby, it was directed to issue process against the accused Nos.1 to 7, for the alleged offence punishable under Section 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instrument Act 1881. The Applicants were arraigned as original accused Nos.3 and 7 in the said case. Accused No.2 was the Chairman and Managing Director of Accused No.1 and Accused Nos.2 and 4 were signatory to the dishonoured cheque. Accused Nos.2 and 5 have expired as stated in the Application. 3.1 By Order dated 9th October 2009, passed by this Court in the said Petition, Rule was granted and as an interim relief in terms of prayer clause (d), pending the hearing and disposal of the Petition, further proceedings in Criminal Complaint No.609/S/2001 pending before the 40th Court of the learned Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate were stayed. On dated 22.04.2025 when the Petition was listed and notified on the board, none appeared for the Petitioners. The Petition was pending since 2009. Therefore, the Petition was directed to be listed on 06.05.2025 under the caption ‘for dismissal’. Accordingly, the Petition was listed on 06.05.2025. However, none appeared for the Petitioners. Therefore, this Court was constrained to dismiss the Petition for want of prosecution. 4. Mr. Jha, learned Counsel for the Applicants submitted that since Rule was granted in the Petition, the matter ought to have been listed for final hearing, but, the Petition was not listed for final hearing. However, this submission is untenable because the farad note dated 1st April 2025 indicates that the Petition was directed to be listed for final hearing. Thereafter, the Petition was listed on 22nd April and 6th May 2025. However, the Petitioners and their Advocate on record were absent on the said dates. No 27th JULY, 2026 P.H. JAYANI 05 IA667.2026.DOC justifiable reason is shown by Mr. Jha, the learned Counsel for absence of the Petitioners and their Advocate on the said date. Mr. Jha tried to blame the Advocate on record for the Petitioner for the said absence. However, how that Advocate was responsible for the consecutive absence is not explained. 5. In the Application it is stated that this Interim Application was prepared on 4th July 2025 and it was filed on 5th July 2025. However, due to excessive work load and some inadvertent reasons, the Advocate clerk failed to clear the office objection. However, Mr. Cutlerywala, the learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 pointed that the instant interim Application was signed by Applicant No.1 on 4th July 2025, but, filed on 20th January 2026, not on 5th July 2025. This is confirmed by the case status (pg 82) and not controverted by Mr. Jha. As such, according to Mr. Cutlerywala there is around eight months delay in filing this Application which is not satisfactorily explained and, said conduct indicates that the Applicants were not sincere even for restoration of the Petition after its dismissal and, they just wanted to prolong the original criminal case pending before the learned Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate. 6. In view of what Mr. Cutlerywala highlighted, Mr. Jha the learned Counsel submitted that since Rule was issued in the Petition, therefore, the instant Interim Application may be allowed subject to costs. This submissions is not much opposed by Mr. Cutlerywala. Therefore, there is no hurdle to allow the Application with costs. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in my considered view, heavy costs is required to be imposed in the case. Page 3 of 6 27th JULY, 2026 P.H. JAYANI 05 IA667.2026.DOC 7. In this regard, it is necessary to note that, the dishonoured cheque is dated 10th May 2001. Said complaint case has been filed in the year 2001, by Respondent No.2 – the drawee, on account of dishonour of the cheque drawn on Dena Bank in the name of Accused No.1 formerly known as M/s. Beautiful Diamonds Ltd. towards discharge of their alleged liability as part payment and realiasation of over draft in the current account maintained with Respondent No.2/Complainant by Accused No.1 M/s. Beautiful Diamonds Ltd. The Petitioners/original accused Nos. 1 to 7 took 8 years to challenge the Order of issue process. The dishonoured cheque was drawn for the sum of Rs.32 lakhs towards part payment of the outstanding and overdue amount of Rs.12.50 Crores of “Export Credit Limit/Facilities”. Meaning thereby, since last 25 years, the Applicants and other accused persons have been using that limit and the dishonoured cheque amount without paying the principal amount and the interest accruing thereon. Even if simple interest is calculated at the rate of 7% per annum on the outstanding and overdue amount of Rs.12.50 Crores, the interest for the last twenty five years would come Rs.21,87,50,000/-. And, on the dishonoured cheque amount, such interest amount would be Rs.56,00,000/-. The Applicants and the original accused have been litigating only out of the interest amount which otherwise is payable to Respondent No.2 and, is the public money. By this time, the value of the dishonoured cheque amount has been very much depreciated. By way of the said case, Respondent No.2 has been trying to recover part of the said amount enduring the litigation cost. As against this, the Applicants and their co-accused have been reaping the benefit of the outstanding amount. As noted above, the Applicants only wants to prolong the said case and take advantage of the dilatory tactics. To save the Applicants from paying costs, Mr. Jha, the learned 27th JULY, 2026 P.H. JAYANI 05 IA667.2026.DOC Counsel submits that M/s. Splendour Gems Ltd. has gone into liquidation. However, he has not informed exactly when the company went into liquidation and if not full, why even 10% part of the outstanding amount could not be returned before the accused company went into the liquidation. 8. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered view that costs of Rs.10,00,000/- will be reasonable in the matter to allow this Interim Application and restore the Petition. As a result, the Interim Application partly succeeds. Hence, following Order is passed :- (i) Interim Application is partly allowed subject to costs of Rs.10,00,000/- to be paid by the Applicants. (ii) The delay in filing of the Interim Application is condoned. (iii) The aforesaid dismissal Order dated 6th May, 2025 is set-aside. (iv) The said costs shall be deposited in this Court Registry within eight weeks from the date of uploading of this Order on the official website of this Court. (v) On payment of the costs as aforesaid, the Petition shall stand restored to the file along with the interim relief, to the stage, at which the Petition was dismissed. (vi) Out of the costs amount, Rs.5,00,000/- be paid to Respondent No.2. Page 5 of 6 27th JULY, 2026 P.H. JAYANI 05 IA667.2026.DOC (vii) The balance costs amount of Rs.5,00,000/- shall be paid to to the Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund’ (AFBCWF) in the following the bank account :- Account Name :- Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund (AFBCWF) Bank Name :- Canara Bank Ltd. DoD, South Block Branch Name :- South Block, Defence Headquarters, New Delhi – 110011. Account Number :- 90552010165915 IFSC Code :- CNRB0019055 Type of Account :- Saving 9. If the costs amount is not paid within stipulated period, this Order shall stand recalled without further reference to this Court. In that event, this Interim Application shall stand dismissed and the said dismissal Order dated 6th May, 2025 shall stand revived. 10. Interim Application stands disposed of in aforesaid terms. 11. List the Interim Application on 28th September 2026 for ‘reporting compliance’. (SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.) 27th JULY, 2026 PREETI HEERO JAYANI Digitally signed by PREETI HEERO JAYANI Date: 2026.07.29 12:49:10 +0530