18-WP-3330-2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3330 OF 2026 Mohamed Ali Furniturewala ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents —————— Mr. Pradyumna D. Sharma (Through Video Conferencing) a/w Gautam P. Khobragade & Nishi Jain, for the Petitioner. Mr. S. S. Ghag, APP, for the Respondent-State. Mr. Jaikumar N. Shiradhonkar a/w Ankit Saxena, for Respondent No.2. —————— Coram: Madhav J. Jamdar, J. Date: 17 September 2026 P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. Shiradhonkar, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2. 2. By this Writ Petition, the challenge is to the legality and validity of the Order dated 29th April 2026 passed by the learned JMFC, 63rd Court, Andheri, Mumbai, below Exhibit-13 in CC No.1776/SS/2019 (“impugned Order”). By the impugned Order, an application filed under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“NI Act”) by Respondent No.2-Original Complainant was allowed, and the Petitioner, i.e., the Accused was directed to pay 20% of the disputed cheque amount to the Complainant as interim compensation under Section 143A(1) of the NI Act within 60 days from the date of the Order. Arjun 1 ARJUN VITTHAL KUDHEKAR Digitally signed by ARJUN VITTHAL KUDHEKAR Date: 2026.09.19 16:54:55 +0530 18-WP-3330-2026.doc 3. Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner had filed a detailed Reply and the said Reply was not taken into consideration by the learned Judge while passing the impugned Order. He relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava v. The State Of Jharkhand 1. He submits that Respondent No.2 is a money lender and is carrying on the business of money lending without obtaining a licence under the provisions of the Money Lending Act and, therefore, the impugned Order should be quashed and set aside. He also relied on FIR/CR No.2112 of 2025 registered with Bandra Police Station, Mumbai City, for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, lodged by Respondent No.2 against the Petitioner, wherein it is accepted that the amount due is only Rs.78,64,366/-. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Shiradhonkar, learned Counsel for Respondent No.2, supported the impugned Order. He submits that Respondent No.2 is not a money lender but had invested the amount in the business of the Petitioner, as the Petitioner had promised that the said investment would get substantial profits. He further submits that the learned Trial Court had passed the Order in accordance with law and, therefore, no interference in the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the 1 (2024) 4 SCC 419 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 309 Arjun 2 18-WP-3330-2026.doc Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) is warranted. 5. Perusal of the Complaint shows that the Complaint filed under Section 138 of the NI Act, has been filed on account of the dishonour of a cheque. Paragraph Nos.9 and 10 of the Complaint are relevant, which read as under: “9. I say that from time to time, I have invested Rs.1,79,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Seventy Nine Lakhs Only) and the Accused has returned Rs. 1,20,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Twenty Lakhs Only) from time to time and Rs. 59,00,000/-(Rupees Fifty Nine Lakhs Only) and profits (which includes assured returns) thereon are outstanding. I say that as on 31/03/2019, the total outstanding amount due and payable by the Accused to me excluding assured profit but including assured minimum return is Rs.77,64,366/- (Rupees Seventy Seven Lakhs Sixty Four Thousand Three Hundred and Sixty Six Only). 10. I say that that on 8th April, 2019 when I presented the cheque issued by the Accused by filling the aforesaid outstanding amount, to my banker State Bank of India, Andheri (West) Branch, Mumbai, the same is however, returned unpaid, dishonoured with remarks "Drawer signature differs". I have received the said dishonoured cheque dated 31/03/2019 along with dishonor memo dated 9th April, 2019, on 15th April, 2019. Copies of the dishonoured Cheque and dishonor Memo dated 9th April, 2019 are hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit-' B' and 'B-1' respectively.” 6. Thus, it is the case of the Complainant, i.e., Respondent No.2, that an amount of Rs.1,79,00,000/- was invested by Respondent No.2 and, after excluding the payments made by the Petitioner/Accused, the outstanding amount as on 31st March 2019 was Rs.77,64,366/-. In the Arjun 3 18-WP-3330-2026.doc FIR, pursuant to which CR No.212 of 2025 was registered by Respondent No.2 against the Petitioner, the same amount is also reflected. As regards the contention that the transaction was in the nature of money lending and that Respondent No.2 had no licence to conduct such business, the same will have to be decided at the stage of trial, as Respondent No.2 has specifically stated in the Complaint that, from time to time, he had invested an amount of Rs.1,79,00,000/- in the business of the Petitioner on the assurance of profits, and that an amount of Rs.77,64,366/- remained outstanding. The decision of the Supreme Court in Rakesh Ranjan (supra), on which learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied, has held that when the Court deals with an application under Section 143A of the NI Act, the Court will have to prima facie evaluate the merits of the case made out by the Complainant and the merits of the defence pleaded by the accused in the reply to the application under Sub-Section (1) of Section 143A, and only if the Complainant makes out a prima facie case, a direction can be issued to pay interim compensation. 7. Perusal of the record shows that a specific case has been made out by Respondent No.2-Complainant that he had invested the amount in the business of the Petitioner. It is an admitted position that at least an amount of Rs.77,64,366/- was outstanding. The said cheque was dated 31st March 2019 and was dishonoured. Arjun 4 18-WP-3330-2026.doc 8. Perusal of the Reply filed by the Petitioner shows that, except for the contention that Respondent No.2 was carrying out a money-lending business and the contentions regarding the manner in which an application under Section 143A of the NI Act is to be dealt with, no other substantial defence has been raised. The cheque is of the year 2019, whereas the impugned Order is dated 29th April 2026, by which the the Petitioner has been directed to pay 20% of the disputed cheque amount as interim compensation. 9. Thus, by considering overall facts and circumstances, no case is made out for grant of any relief under the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of BNSS. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. [Madhav J. Jamdar, J.] Arjun 5