Cheque Bounce Case: Mumbai Court Sets Aside Summons To Robin Uthappa

Robin Uthappa

In a relief to former Indian cricketer Robin Uthappa, a sessions court has directed that a cheque-bouncing case filed against him be sent back to the magistrate court for a fresh hearing.

The decision came after the court found that mandatory legal provisions had not been followed in the earlier proceedings.

Summons Set Aside

The sessions court set aside the summons issued against Uthappa by the magistrate, observing that the lower court failed to conduct a preliminary inquiry as required under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Such an inquiry is particularly necessary when the accused resides outside the jurisdiction of the court, the sessions judge noted.

The court stressed that a magistrate must first determine whether there are sufficient grounds to summon an accused in a private complaint before issuing process. The case has now been remanded to the magistrate for reconsideration.

Case Background

The complaint was originally filed against Centaurus Lifestyle Brands Pvt Ltd, a company where Uthappa served as a director. The complainant, Senior Marketing, alleged that Centaurus had appointed it as the sole distributor for its products in Mumbai, Thane, and Navi Mumbai.

The dispute began in October 2017, when Centaurus allegedly engaged two additional distributors without the complainant’s consent. Following disagreements, a meeting was held where the complainant returned all existing stocks, and Centaurus reportedly agreed to settle the matter by paying the outstanding dues.

Disputed Cheques

According to the complaint, the returned goods were dispatched back to Centaurus in July 2018. To settle the payment, the company issued post-dated cheques worth ₹22.22 lakh in February 2019. However, when presented in March 2019, the cheques were dishonoured due to insufficient funds.

Subsequently, the complainant initiated legal proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act, leading to the issuance of a summons by the magistrate against Uthappa in his capacity as director of the firm.

Court Intervention

Challenging the summons, Uthappa approached the sessions court, which agreed with his contention that the magistrate had erred by not conducting the mandatory preliminary inquiry. The sessions court has now asked the magistrate to hear the case afresh and decide whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against Uthappa.

With the sessions court setting aside the summons, the matter will return to the magistrate court for fresh consideration.