In the cheque bouncing case against former Indian cricketer Robin Uthappa, a sessions court has set aside a summons issued to him and sent the case back to the magistrate court for inquiry. On June 7, 2019, a magistrate court in Mazgaon had passed an order issuing summons to Uthappa in a case involving an agreement between two companies over distribution of merchandise. Uthappa had approached the sessions court with an appeal against the summons stating that the magistrate court had failed to consider that he had no active role in the accused company and had no knowledge of the alleged transaction. Additional sessions judge K D Jadhav said the magistrate court before issuing notice had not conducted a mandatory inquiry under the Criminal Procedure Code. Uthappa's lawyer, Siddhesh Borkar, had submitted that the court had also not considered that the cricketer's residential address is beyond its territorial jurisdiction. He said the court while issuing a notice against him had failed to consider that he had no active role in the accused company and that he himself had invested in the company, which had failed to repay the amount owed to the complainant. He had said that the court failed to consider that he was neither a signatory in the company but a non-active director. He also submitted that he had resigned from the company and has no knowledge of the alleged transaction. “On perusal of the impugned order, the order does not reveal the magistrate had conducted any inquiry or investigation though the title clause of the complaint shows that the applicant is the resident of the place beyond its territorial jurisdiction. Therefore, it was mandatory upon magistrate to make any inquiry as it deems fit under Section 202 of CrPC. Thus, the order of the magistrate does not find place in law and therefore, the order of the magistrate requires to be interfered," the court said in the order on September 22, made public on Friday. Section 202 of the CrPC has a provision for postponement in issuing notice if it finds that the accused resides in an area beyond its jurisdiction. It has to then inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer, to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. The complainant, the proprietor of Senior Marketing Pvt Ltd, had said the company had entered an agreement with Centaurus Lifestyle, for non-exclusive sale of distribution of merchandise, manufactured by the cricketer. A business of Rs 75 lakh was done as per the agreement, dated 2016. It was claimed that a dispute emerged between the companies which was resolved after the accused company agreed to pay Rs 75 lakh to the complainant within 90 days. The complainant claimed that in 2018, the accused company gave a full and final settlement cheque of Rs 22.22 lakh but it was returned due to insufficient funds. The company alleged dishonouring of a cheque, an offence under the Negotiable Instruments Act. Uthappa had claimed that he was a non-active director and was not aware of the day-to-day functioning and that he had resigned from the accused company. The sessions court said that no evidence was given to show that Uthappa was a non-active director.
