TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 945X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mr. Uday Babade i/by. Mr. Jeetendra H. Ramugade for Petitioner in WP No. 2131/2019. Mr. Balwant Salunke i/by. Ms. Priyanka G. Chandaliya for Petitioner in WP No. 2450/2019. Mrs. M.R. Tidke, APP for Respondent No. 2 State in both petitions. Mr. Vijay D. Patil a/w. Mr. Yogesh Patil for Respondent No. 1. JUDGMENT 1. Since both the Petitions are arising out of order dated 05th February 2019 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, 4th Court, Pune in CC No. 155/2019 both the Petitions are heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. These petition takes an exception to the order dated 05.02.2019 of issuance of process passed by the Ld. Judicial Mag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Petition grounds taken therein learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that Petition deserves to be allowed. 5. Advocate Mr. Balwant Salunke appearing for the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2450/2019 submits that Petitioner is the borrower who borrowed the loan from the Respondent No. 1 Bank by mortgaging the property. He further submits that, Petitioner orally requested the Respondent Bank that the Petitioner is facing certain financial crisis therefore, he is not in a position to pay the said installments but will clear the same at the earliest meanwhile not to take any coercive action against him. But the Respondent Bank refused to accept the oral request of the Petitioner and issued a Notice under Section 13( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 155/2019. Therefore, relying upon the pleadings in the Petition, grounds taken therein learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that Petition deserves to be allowed. 7. Advocate Vijay D. Patil appearing for the first Respondent invites attention of this Court to the affidavit in reply filed in both the Petition and made following submissions: Petitioner alongwith his brother Mr. Dhananjay Pralhad Salunkhe upon an application made by them had requested to the Respondent Bank for financial assistance by way of business loan to take over loan of Bank of Maharashtra, Satara Branch. Accordingly, in pursuance of security documents executed by the Petitioner as well as his brother the Respondent Bank sanctioned a total loan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egal / demand notice from the Respondent Bank in respect of the dishonoured cheque is not true and correct, hence denied by the Respondent Bank. It is submitted the said legal / demand notice sent by the Respondent Bank to the Petitioner were returned with a remark stating Refused . Therefore, learned counsel appearing for the First Respondent prays that these petition may be rejected. 9. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and first respondent at length. With their able assistance perused the pleadings in the Petitions annexures thereto and also the reply filed by the first Respondent. It is not necessary for this Court to give elaborate reasons. Suffice it to say that, the documents placed on record by the Petitioners and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tate of Bihar and anr v/s. K J D Singh reported in 1993 (41) BLJR 1401 and a judgment of the Delhi High Court in the matter of Ambica Plastopack Pvt. Ltd and anr. v/s. State and anr. in Cri. M C No.2698 of 2011 decided on 01/11/2013 . The question before the Apex in K J D Singh s case (supra) was, whether the criminal proceedings can be quashed even before the commencement of the Trial. Paragraph 3 of the said judgment of the Apex Court is relevant. The relevant excerpt of the said paragraph 3 is reproduced herein under : The inherent power under Section 482 has to be exercised for the ends of the justice and should not be arbitrarily exercised to cut short the normal process of a criminal trial. After a review of catena ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
