1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3063 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3064 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3065 OF 2009 Girdhari Lal Lath. ... Applicant. V/s. M/s. Llyods Finance Ltd. & Anr. ... Respondents. Mr. Harshad Bhadbhade for the Applicant. Mr. Parab i/b. Parab & Associates for Respondents 1. Mrs. R.V. Newton, APP for the State. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATED : 12th JANUARY 2010. P.C. :- This is an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. For quashing the order issuing process dated 17th May 2002 and the proceedings viz. C.C. No.1646/SS/2005 on the file of the Special Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai. 2. The Applicant/Petitioner before me is the Original Accused No.3. He is a Senior Citizen. The process has been issued on a complaint filed by a Company, Llyods Finance Ltd. The complaint alleges commission of offences under Section 138 r/w. 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. The Applicant does not deny that he was a Director of 2 the First Accused – Company alongwith one Santosh Kumar Kejriwal and others. The contention raised before me by Mr. Bhadbhade is that the complaint cannot proceed any longer as Accused No.1 has gone in liquidation and therefore, deleted as an Accused. Further, Original Accused No.2 Mr. Kejriwal, who was the signatory to the cheque alongwith the Petitioner/Applicant has forwarded an amount to the Complainant Company in full and final settlement. Therefore, the complainant has deleted the said Kejriwal as an Accused. Now, for the very same cheque, the complainant is proceeding against this Petitioner and more particularly, when the Petitioner also has made some payment to the Complainant. Therefore, continuance of this criminal case would be an abuse of the process of the Court. 4. The next contention is that the verification statement has been recorded by the Magistrate in a prescribed format. In all such cases, the practice of preparing a format and filling in details was followed by the Magistrates concerned. Ultimately, this Court, in a decision reported in 2009 (3) BCR 258 (Amarnath Baijnath Gupta & Anr. V/s. Mohini Organics Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.) directed that such a verification is not valid in the eyes of law. The Magistrate is obliged to apply his mind to the individual facts and thereafter. Undertake a proper verification. The Magistrate has not done so in the instant case but has gone by a prescribed format and therefore, his order of issuance of process is liable to be set aside. 3 5. The last contention was that the issue as to whether in the absence of the Company being arrayed as an Accused, a Director alone can be proceeded against for offences punishable under the Negotiable Instruments Act, is pending consideration of a larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Till that issue is resolved, no useful purpose will be served by the Magistrate proceeding with the instant complaint. 6. I am unable to accept any of these contentions. Firstly, the Applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. That is to be exercised sparingly and not as a matter of course. In the present case, the order issuing process is dated 17th May 2002. That is issued upon a complaint which is stated to be filed before the Trial Court on 3rd March 1999. All events that are projected before me as the basis of the legal contentions have taken place during the pendency of the proceedings before the Magistrate. I have no doubt in my mind that the Magistrate will take due cognizance of the legal position and make final orders on the complaint. There is no basis for the apprehension that the Magistrate may not apply his mind to the fact that the complainant has chosen to proceed with the complaint against some of the accused and has dropped the others. Further, the fact that the First Respondent – Company is in liquidation is also something which the Magistrate will take into account. The process having been issued as early as on 17th May 2002, the Applicant having appeared before the Trial Court for all these years, I do not see how he can now raise a plea that the said 4 order is not in terms of the law laid down by this Hon’ble Court. The matter has proceeded before the Trial Court for all these years. At this belated stage, the order issuing process need not be interfered with at the instance of the Applicant who has been appearing before the Trial Court throughout. In these circumstances and merely because some issue is pending consideration before a larger bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court the Petition need not be entertained. To my mind, the principles that are applicable while exercising such jurisdiction do not permit me to interfere with the proceedings and the order issuing process. The Application is dismissed. However, all contentions as are raised by parties before me are open for being raised during the course of the proceedings before the Trial Court. 7. The learned Magistrate should endeavor to dispose off the complaint expeditiously considering that the Applicant is a Senior Citizen. He should endeavor and dispose it off on or before 31st May 2010. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.)