1 104 wp.578.10 w 579 w 580 w 583.10 ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 578 OF 2010 Mayuka Labs Pvt. Ltd and another. ... Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra and another. ... Respondents WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 579 OF 2010 Nakka Krishnamurthy. ... Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and another. ... Respondents WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 580 OF 2010 Suguna Nakka Krishnamurthy. ... Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and another. ... Respondents AND CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 583 OF 2010 Mrs. Meera Aralikatte Narayan ... Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and another. ... Respondents ----- Mr. U.L.Shah for the Petitioner/s. Mr. A.R.Patil, APP for Respondent No.1 / State. Mr. Ankush Bansal for Respondent No.2. ----- 2 104 wp.578.10 w 579 w 580 w 583.10 CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 26 th September, 2011. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 – original complainant. I have heard the learned APP appearing for Respondent No.1 – State. 2 The Respondent No.2 filed a complaint against the Petitioner and others alleging commission of an offence under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instructions Act, 1881. Process was issued on the said complaint. In these petitions, the challenge is to the order of issue of process. There are two contentions raised in this petition. The first contention is that the directions contained in the decision of of this Court in the case of Amarnath Baijnath Gupta and anr Vs. M/s.Mohini Organics Pvt. Ltd., [2009 (1) AIR Bom. R. 545] were not followed and the second contention is that the amended provision of Section 202 (1) of the 3 104 wp.578.10 w 579 w 580 w 583.10 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has not been complied with inasmuch as the persons, who have been arraigned as an accused are residing outside of the jurisdiction of the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. As far as the first contention is concerned, the same will not survive inasmuch as the view taken by this Court in the case of Amarnath Baijnath Gupta and anr (supra) is no longer a good law. As far as second contention is concerned, there is a conflict of opinion expressed by two learned Judges of this Court on the issue whether the amended provision of sub-Section (1) of Section 202 is mandatory or directory. There is a reference made to a Larger Bench on the issue. 3 The learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 (original Complainant) stated that instead of keeping the petitions pending in this Court as the decision on the aforesaid issue will take sometime, the complaint be remanded with a direction to follow the amended provision. He pointed out that the Petitioner No.2 has not disclosed the correct address for service. 4 104 wp.578.10 w 579 w 580 w 583.10 4 The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners has tendered affidavits dated 16 th September, 2011 disclosing the address for service of the Petitioner No.2. The affidavits are taken on record and the statement made therein is accepted. 5 Hence, I pass the following order: i. The impugned order issuing process is quashed and set aside and the complaint is remanded to the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate ; ii. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate shall proceed in accordance with the amended Sub- Section (1) of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ; iii. The hearing of the complaint is expedited ; iv. Petitions are disposed of on above terms ; and v. All the contentions of the parties on merits of the complaint are kept open. [ A.S.OKA, J ]