1 WP : 3254/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3254 OF 2010 M/s Ankita Knit Wear Limited .... Petitioners & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. .... Respondents Mr. Ashok Saraogi i/by Mr. Ashok Kumar Upadhyay, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. P.A. Pol, APP for State-respondent no.1. Mr. Yashpal Thakur i/by Paras Kuhad & Associates for respondent no.2. Coram : Smt. R.P.SondurBaldota, J. Date : 1st February, 2011 P.C. 1. This petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India and under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure seeks quashing of process in C.C. No.499/SS/2010 pending in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 12th Court, Bandra, Mumbai filed by respondent no.2 under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. The petitioners are original accused nos. 1 to 4. The complaint came to be filed on 9th April 2010. On 15th May 2010, the statement and verification on behalf of the complainant was 2 WP : 3254/2010 recorded. Then, the plea of accused persons was recorded and on 19th October 2010, affidavit of examination-in-chief on behalf of the complainant came to be filed. About fortnight thereafter i.e. on 1st November 2010, the present petition was filed. Thus on the date of filing of the petition, the plea of the petitioners was recorded, affidavit of examination-in- chief filed and a copy furnished thereof to the petitioners. In these circumstances, as has been rightly submitted by Mr. Thakur, the learned counsel for respondent no.2, application under Section 482 for quashing of the order of issuance of process is not maintenable. The learned counsel relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in Subramanium Sethuraman vs. State of Maharashtra and another, (Criminal Appeal No.1253 of 2002 dtd. 17.09.2004), wherein it has been held that the case involving a summons case is covered by Chapter XX of the Code which does not contemplate a stage of discharge like Section 239 which provides for a discharge in a warrant case. Therefore, once the plea of the accused is recorded under Section 252 of the Code, the procedure contemplated under Chapter XX has to be followed which is to take the trial to its logical conclusion. Relying upon the decision in Subramanium’s case and also another decision of the Apex Court in Nikumbh Dairy Products Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, the Single Judge of this court in the case of Subhiksha Trading Services Ltd. & Ors. vs. Kotak Mahindra 3 WP : 3254/2010 Bank Ltd. & Anr., reported in 2010(3) Bom. C.R.(Cri.) 649 has held that after the plea is recorded and the recording of evidence has commenced, it will not be possible to interfere with the order of issuance of process. For this very reason, this court by its order dated 23rd September 2010 had dismissed similar application filed by the other directors of petitioner no.1. 3. Mr. Saraogi, the learned counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and others, reported in (1998) 5 Supreme Court Cases, 749, submits that power of court to discharge the accused can be exercised at any stage of the trial. Undoubtedly the powers of the High Court under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure are vast and extensive. However the same are required to be exercised only in extraordinary circumstances. Therefore if there is plea recorded of the accused persons, ordinarily this Court must allow the trial to be completed and not interfere with the order of issuance of process. Besides, there are no extraordinary features of the case that warrant interference at this stage. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. Mr. Saraogi next finds fault with the order of the trial Court issuing process submitting that by the first order, the learned Magistrate had directed enquiry under Section 202 Code of Criminal Procedure to be conducted. Later without waiting for 4 WP : 3254/2010 completion of the enquiry, he passed the order of issuance of process based on the contents of the complaint, statement in verification and the statutory notice, after holding that prima facie case is made out against the accused for issuance of process. Respondent no.2 has filed an affidavit in reply explaining the order relating to Section 202 Cr.P.C.. The learned counsel for respondent no.2 points out from the complaint that the address of the petitioners shown in the title of the complaint was of village Vadavali, Post Uchat, Taluka Wada, Dist. Thane which is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate. He submits that because the addresses fall in the area beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the court, the learned Magistrate had passed an order postponing the issuance of process under Section 202 Cr.P.C. However, after the counsel for respondent no.2 pointed out to the Court that the address of the petitioners stated in the complaint was the office address and not the residential address, and submitted that in that case no enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C was required by postponing issuance of the process. Therefore the court had proceeded to pass the order of issuance of process. Perusal of the title of the complaint, confirms the position that the title shows the office address of the petitioners is of Thane, whereas there is residential address of the accused which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate. In the circumstances, there is no infirmity in the 5 WP : 3254/2010 order of the learned Magistrate. 5. Lastly it has been submitted by Mr. Saraogi that the cheques in question have been issued by way of security. He submits that it is well established now, that if the cheques are issued by way of security, then it cannot be said that at the time of issuance of process, there was any legally enforceable debt in existence. Admittedly the petitioners did not sent any reply to the statutory notice served upon them. This disputed fact can be considered only at the trial. Hence, the petition is dismissed. (Smt. R.P.SondurBaldota, J)