1 2458.10-wp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2458 OF 2010 Rajeev Kumar Nandpal Lohriya ..Petitioner Vs. Sanjay Rochiram Dulhani & Anr. ..Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1715 OF 2010 M/s.S.K.Brothers & Anr. ..Petitioners Vs. Sanjay Rochiram Dulhani & Anr. ..Respondents Mr.M.H.Ahooja for the petitioners. Mr.J.P.Kharge, APP for the respondents. CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL,J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 2, 2011 PC. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners in both the matters. On August 24, 2010, after hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioners and for respondent No.1 (original complainant), this Court directed ad-interim-relief in terms of prayer clause (b) qua the petitioners. The Trial Court was at liberty to proceed with the case as against other accused. 2. The petitioner in W.P.No.2458 of 2010 reiterate that the MOU is not signed by him. At the material time, he was not in India. He has no contractual liability or otherwise with the complainant. The cheques are signed by original accused No.1 Sumeet Bachewar for the firm accused No.2 M/s.Bachewar Enterprises. 2 2458.10-wp 3. Reading the complaint, I find general averments are made concerning oral or involvement of petitioner in the transaction of the liability arising out of dishonour of cheques. The statutory notice which was sent, has been properly dealt with by the petitioner. Considering these aspects and as even after service and giving sufficient time, there is no participation from the respondent (complainant), the petition to the extent of petitioner is allowed. The proceedings before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Vashi, CBD, New Mumbai being Summary Criminal Case Nos.3280 of 2009, 3281 of 2009, 3282 of 2009 and 3283 of 2009 is quashed and set aside. 4. The learned Judge, in the fact situation ought to have entertained the exemption applications of the petitioners. The Non- Bailable-Warrant issued against the petitioners herein stands rejected. The learned Judge shall allow further exemption whenever it is so made. However, if the Counsel for the petitioners remains absent for two consecutive dates before the learned Judge, the learned Judge shall be at liberty to insist the appearance of the petitioners before him. 5. The petitions allowed to the extent as above. (K.U.CHANDIWAL,J.)