Order 2

Order Details: Order
Pdf Text: 1
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
44TH COURT, ANDHERI, MUMBAI.
C.C.No.4716/SS/2018
Vinayak Namdeo Koli Vs Soniya Asandas Jagtiani
ORDER PASSED ON EXH.NO.18
(Passed on 26/04/2024)
The accused No.2 has filed this application for discharging
her from this case on the ground that she is neither signatory to the
disputed cheque nor she is joint account holder. The another ground
raised for discharging her is that the prerequisite compliance has not
been done and the case is not made out against her.
2. Per contra, the complainant strongly opposed the
applications on the ground that the order regarding the issuance of
summons cannot be recall by this Court and this application is not
tenable in the law. It is the stand of the complainant that the accused
no.2 is jointly and severely liable for the offence punishable under section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. Having heard the learned advocates for both the side, I
perused the record.
4. At the outset, it is pertinent to note here that this Court is
not empowered to review its own order regarding the issuance of
summons. In this regard, I am guided by the ratio laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Adalat Prasad Vs Rupal Jindal
and Ors., reported in AIR 2004 SC 4674 wherein the Hon'ble Apex
-- 1 of 2 --
2
Court held that recalling of order of issuance of summons cannot be
made by the Magistrate since review of such order is not maintainable.
5. The another reason for rejection of this application is that
after filing the present applications on hand for discharge, the plea of the
accused No.1 came to be recorded and the case is fixed for evidence. In
such circumstances, this court is of humble opinion that the present
application filed on hand is not tenable. Hence, I pass the following
order:
ORDER
The application filed at Exh.No.18 stands rejected.
Sd/
( Sujitkumar C. Tayde )
Metropolitan Magistrate,
Date : 26/04/2024 44 th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 2 of 2 --