12b cr appw 270-10.doc RMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 270 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3392 OF 2009 The National Aviation Company of India Ltd .. Applicant Vs Deepak Yashwant Prabhu & Anr .. Respondents Mr. Sudhir Talsania, Sr. Advocate & Ms. Kavita Anchan i/b M/s. M.V. Kini & Co for the Applicant Mr. Deepak Prabhu in person CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J DATE : 8th OCTOBER, 2010. P.C.: 1. Heard learned advocate for the Applicant-original complainant and respondent no. 1-original accused appearing in person. 2. The applicant is seeking quashing of order dated 21st May 2010 whereby the learned Magistrate allowed the application of respondent no. 1 for issuance of summons to Mrs. Meenakshi Kashyam, Mr. R.M. Pawar, Mr.Ajay Thakur and G.M. (Admin) Stores & Purchase Dept or Material Management Department, who are the office bearers of the applicant. 3. Complaint came to be filed by the applicant against the respondent under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956. The said case is numbered as 3317/S/05 and it is pending 1 12b cr appw 270-10.doc before the learned Magistrate, 32nd Court, Bandra, Mumbai. On 21st May 2010, respondent no. 1 preferred an application before the learned Magistrate for issuance of summons to Mrs. Meenakshi Kashyam, Mr. R.M. Pawar, Mr.Ajay Thakur and G.M. (Admin) Stores & Purchase Dept or Material Management Department, who are the office bearers of the applicant. The said application came to be allowed by the learned Magistrate on the very same day. The applicant has impugned said order. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that no opportunity was given to the applicant before the said application came to be allowed. Respondent no. 1 states that the applicant was heard before the said order was passed. However, the order of the learned Magistrate does not reflect that the applicant was heard. Admittedly, there is also no reply of the applicants to the said application preferred by the respondent. The learned counsel for the applicant states that on 21st May 2010, immediately after the application was preferred by the respondent, the said order came to be passed and hence, the applicant was not even given a chance to give his say on the said application. 5. Obviously as the applicant is the main contesting party i.e Complainant in the said matter, an opportunity ought to have been given to the applicant before the application 2 12b cr appw 270-10.doc came to be allowed. The record does not indicate that any such opportunity was granted to the applicant, hence, the order dated 21st May, 2010 is set aside. The applicant be given an opportunity to represent their case and thereafter, the learned Magistrate to proceed with the said application in accordance with law. 6. Application disposed of in above terms. [SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] 3