12A. cr wp 3392-09.doc RMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3392 OF 2009 The National Aviation Company of India Ltd .. Petitioner Vs Deepak Yashwant Prabhu & Anr .. Respondents Mr. Sudhir Talsania, Sr. Advocate & Ms. Kavita Anchan i/b M/s. M.V. Kini & Co for the Petitioner Mr. Deepak Prabhu in person CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J DATE : 8th OCTOBER, 2010. P.C.: 1. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner-original complainant and respondent no. 1-original accused appearing in person. 2. The petitioner is seeking quashing of order dated 18th September 2009 whereby the learned Magistrate allowed the application of respondent no. 1 for issuance of summons to its Chairman and Directors. 3. Complaint came to be filed by the petitioner against the respondent under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956. The said case is numbered as 3317/S/05 and it is pending before the learned Magistrate, 32nd Court, Bandra, Mumbai. On 18th September 2009, respondent no. 1 preferred an 1 12A. cr wp 3392-09.doc application before the learned Magistrate for issuance of summons to the Chairman and Managing Director of the petitioner company and two directors of the said company. The said application came to be allowed by the learned Magistrate on the very same day. The petitioner has impugned the said order. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no opportunity was given to the petitioner before the said application came to be allowed. Respondent no. 1 states that the petitioner was heard before the said order was passed. However, the order of the learned Magistrate does not reflect that the petitioner was heard. Admittedly, there is also no reply of the petitioner to the said application preferred by the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that on 18th September 2009, immediately after the application was preferred by the respondent, the said order came to be passed and hence, the petitioner was not given a chance to give his say on the said application. 5. Obviously as the petitioner is the main contesting party i.e Complainant in the said matter, an opportunity ought to have been given to the petitioner before the application came to be allowed. The record does not indicate that any such opportunity was granted to the petitioner, hence, the order dated 18th September 2009 is 2 12A. cr wp 3392-09.doc set aside. The petitioner be given an opportunity to represent their case and thereafter, the learned Magistrate to proceed with the said application in accordance with law. 6. Petition disposed of in above terms. [SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] 3