Mumbai court sets aside summons issued to cricketer Robin Uthapa in cheque bounce case

A sessions court here has set aside the summons issued by a magistrate against former India cricketer Robin Uthapa in a 2019 cheque bounce case, noting the trial court didn’t conduct an inquiry mandatory under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) before passing its order.

Additional session judge Kunal Dhanaji Jadhav, in a ruling last month, remanded the matter back to the trial court with a direction to conduct an inquiry under section 202 of the CrPC.

An enquiry under Section 202 is a preliminary investigation by a magistrate to determine if there are sufficient grounds to issue a process (summons) against an accused in a private complaint case, especially when he or she resides outside the court’s jurisdiction.

Uthapa had filed a revision application, through advocate Siddhesh Borkar, before the sessions court against a June 7, 2019, order passed by the metropolitan magistrate (Mazgaon).

In 2019, a private firm, Senior Marketing Pvt Ltd, filed a complaint before a magistrate court in Mumbai against another company, Centaurus Lifestyle, and its directors, including Uthappa, for issuing a post-dated cheque, which was dishonoured due to “insufficient balance”.

The cricketer, in his revision plea, highlighted that he is a resident of Bengaluru, beyond the local jurisdiction of the court, and stated that the magistrate had failed to conduct the mandatory inquiry under section 202 of the CrPC before issuing the process.

Centaurus Lifestyle had signed an agreement with the complainant firm for the distribution and sale of its merchandise in Mumbai and nearby areas.

However, owing to some conflicts, the agreement was broken. The lifestyle company then issued a post-dated cheque of Rs 22,22,729 drawn on Federal Bank to the marketing firm. The cheque, however, was dishonoured with the remark “insufficient balance”, he stated.

The cricketer asserted he was merely a “non-active” director of Centaurus Lifestyle on account of being an investor in the company.

The magistrate also did not consider that the cricketer was a “non-active director of the accused company” and had no role in the day-to-day affairs of the firm, the plea stated.

The cricketer claimed to be merely an investor who had also filed a criminal complaint against the accused company for the misuse of funds.

The sessions judge noted that perusal of the magistrate’s order does not reveal that any inquiry, mandatory under the CrPC, was conducted, though the applicant (Uthapa) is a resident of the place beyond its territorial jurisdiction.

The court set aside the summons issued to the cricketer and remanded the matter back to the trial court, directing it to conduct an inquiry under section 202 of the CrPC and follow the procedure of law thereafter.