1 WP 2107/10 to WP 2111/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2107 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2108 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2109 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2110 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2111 OF 2010 Mr. Vishal Ranka ..... Petitioner. v/s The State of Maharashtra and anr. ...... Respondents. Mr. Dilip Devadiga for the Petitioner. Mr. Jatin P. Shah i/b Hasmukh V. Shah & Co. for Respondent No.2. Mrs. M.R. Tidake, APP for the State. CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 13th October, 2010 P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for Petitioners and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.2. The learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 undertakes to file vakalatnama within one week from today. 2 WP 2107/10 to WP 2111/10 2. Petitioners are challenging the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate issuing process on a complaint filed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The order of issuance of process is challenged on two grounds. It is submitted that inquiry under section 202 of the Cr.P.C., which is mandatory, has not been held and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. Secondly, it is submitted that the verification is not in accordance with the guidelines laid down by this Court in Amarnath Baijnath Gupta and Anr vs. Mohini Organics Pvt. Ltd. & Anr1, therefore, on this ground also the issuance of process is illegal. 3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.2, on the other hand, submitted that a plea in this case was recorded on 16/5/2009 and an affidavit in lieu of evidence was filed on 11/6/2009. It is submitted that the trial has begun and, thereafter, Petitioners herein have taken 18 adjournments in the Trial Court. He has filed copy of the roznama in support of the said submission. He has also submitted that the Petitioners on the one hand have been filing applications in the Trial Court stating therein that they are ready for settlement and, on the other hand, number of applications are made one on ground or the other to protract the trial. It is submitted that the Petitioners also have filed an application under section 201 of the Cr.P.C. for 1 2009 ALL MR (Cri) 184 3 WP 2107/10 to WP 2111/10 return of the complaint on the ground of jurisdiction. However, they have not challenged the order passed on the said application in this Petition. It is submitted that the Petitioners may, therefore, file another Petition, if these Petitions are dismissed; the idea being to protract the trial. 4. After having heard both the learned Counsel at length, in my view, no case is made out for interfering with the order of issuance of process. Firstly, trial has begun since plea was recorded in 2009 and affidavit in lieu of evidence was filed on 11/6/2009. The roznama indicates that as many as 18 adjournments have been taken by the Petitioners herein. That being the position, at this stage, it will not be possible to now entertain the objection raised by the Petitioners for non-compliance of section 202 of the Cr.P.C. and recording of improper verification by the Trial Court. 5. All these Writ Petitions are dismissed. Trial is expedited. The learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of the criminal cases within six months. 6. It was open for the Petitioners to challenge the order passed by the learned Magistrate on their application for return of the complaint under section 201 of the Cr.P.C. However, the said order has not been challenged. By virtue of dismissal of these Petitions, it will not be now open for the Petitioners to challenge the said order in view of principles 4 WP 2107/10 to WP 2111/10 which are analogous to the doctrine of constructive res judicata. (V.M. KANADE, J.)