:1: :1: :1: HIGH HIGH HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 2424 OF 2005 PETITION NO. 2424 OF 2005 PETITION NO. 2424 OF 2005 AND WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 2428 OF 2005 PETITION NO. 2428 OF 2005 PETITION NO. 2428 OF 2005 M/s. Iminex Holdings & Investments & Ors. ..Petitioners Versus. Mr. Bhupatbhai Kalyanji Koticha & Anr. ..Respondents. --- AND WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 2423 OF 2005 PETITION NO. 2423 OF 2005 PETITION NO. 2423 OF 2005 AND WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 2429 OF 2005 PETITION NO. 2429 OF 2005 PETITION NO. 2429 OF 2005 AND WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 2430 OF 2005 PETITION NO. 2430 OF 2005 PETITION NO. 2430 OF 2005 AND WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 2431 OF 2005 PETITION NO. 2431 OF 2005 PETITION NO. 2431 OF 2005 AND WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 2432 OF 2005 PETITION NO. 2432 OF 2005 PETITION NO. 2432 OF 2005 AND WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 2433 OF 2005 PETITION NO. 2433 OF 2005 PETITION NO. 2433 OF 2005 Mr. Mahipatrai J. Shah & Ors. ..Petitioners Versus. Mr. Bhupatbhai Kalyanji Koticha & Anr. ..Respondents. --- Shri. S. V. Marwadi for the Petitioners Shri. Bhavin Bhatia for the respondent No.1. Smt. M. H. Mhatre A.P.P. for the Respondent - State. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR, J. A.M. KHANWILKAR, J. A.M. KHANWILKAR, J. DATE DATE DATE : DECEMBER 15, 2005. : DECEMBER 15, 2005. : DECEMBER 15, 2005. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. Shri. Bhavin Bhatia waives notice for Respondent No.1. Smt. M.H. :2: :2: :2: Mhatre, A.P.P. waives notice for Respondent - State. By consent taken up for final disposal forthwith, as short question is involved. 2. This petition essentially takes exception to the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate 31st Court at Vikroli, Mumbai, dated 2nd December, 2004, rejecting the discharge application filed by the Petitioners. The sole ground on which the discharge application is rejected by relying on the exposition of the Apex Court in Adalat Prasad Vs. Ruplal Jindal & Adalat Prasad Vs. Ruplal Jindal & Adalat Prasad Vs. Ruplal Jindal & Ors. Ors. Ors. The Petitioners carried the matter in revision before the Sessions Court. However, even the Sessions Court has rejected the revision application confirming the view taken by the Trial Court by adverting to the same decision of the Apex Court in Adalat Prasad’s Case (Supra). 3. The grievance made before this Court on behalf of the Petitioners is that the Courts below have misapplied the legal position stated in the said decision to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The said decision has no application to the present case, as the same is warrant triable case. Inasmuch as, the Petitioners are prosecuted for the offence punishable under section 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In the circumstances, the Petitioners are right in :3: :3: :3: contending that the orders passed by the Courts below cannot be sustained on facts or in law. This petition, therefore, should succeed. The impugned orders are set aside and the Petitioners are relegated before the Trial Court, who in turn, shall decide the discharge application afresh on its own merits in accordance with law. Rule made absolute in above terms. 4. The Trial Court shall expeditiously decide the discharge application preferred by the Petitioners, preferably within three months from the receipt of writ of this order from this Court. In the event the discharge application is dismissed, the Trial Court may proceed to frame the charges after following the necessary procedure and proceed with the trial to be decided expeditiously, as Respondent-Complainant is a Senior Citizen. Ordered accordingly. (A.M.KHANWILKAR, (A.M.KHANWILKAR, (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.) J.) J.)