Cricketer Robin Uthappa Gets Relief in Cheque Bounce Case

Former Cricketer Robin Uthappa has got a major Relief in Cheque Bounce Case. A Mumbai sessions court has set aside the summons issued to him and sent the matter back to the magistrate court for a fresh inquiry.

What is the case all about?

On June 7, 2019, a magistrate court in Mazgaon had issued a summons to Uthappa in connection with a dispute between two companies over the distribution of merchandise. The complaint was filed by the proprietor of Senior Marketing Pvt Ltd, who alleged that Centaurus Lifestyle, a company linked to Uthappa, had failed to clear dues under a business agreement. According to the complainant, a business worth ₹75 lakh was conducted as per a 2016 agreement. Later, a settlement cheque of ₹22.22 lakh issued by the accused company in 2018 was dishonoured due to insufficient funds.

What Robin Uthappa said about Cheque Bounce Case?

Robin Uthappa challenged the summons before the sessions court, arguing that he had no active role in the accused company and no knowledge of the disputed transaction. His lawyer, Siddhesh Borkar, also pointed out that:

• Uthappa was a non-active director in the company and not a signatory to its cheques.
• He had resigned from the company before the alleged incident.
• The magistrate court had issued the summons without jurisdiction, as Uthappa’s residential address was outside its area of authority.

What Court said?

Additional Sessions Judge K.D. Jadhav found that the magistrate court had failed to conduct a mandatory inquiry under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) before issuing the summons.

“On perusal of the impugned order, it does not reveal that the magistrate conducted any inquiry or investigation, even though the accused resides outside its territorial jurisdiction. Therefore, it was mandatory for the magistrate to make such inquiry under Section 202 of CrPC,” the judge said.

What Section 202 CrPC Says

Section 202 of the CrPC states that if the accused resides outside the jurisdiction of the court, the magistrate must first inquire into the matter or direct an investigation before deciding whether there is sufficient ground to proceed.

The Complaint and Dispute

The complainant had claimed that Centaurus Lifestyle had agreed to pay ₹75 lakh to settle the dispute within 90 days. However, the cheque for ₹22.22 lakh issued as part of the settlement bounced, leading to a case under the Negotiable Instruments Act. Uthappa, however, maintained that he had no role in the company’s daily operations and had already resigned from it before the incident.

The sessions court said no evidence was presented to prove Uthappa’s claim of being a non-active director, but ruled that the magistrate’s failure to conduct an inquiry required the summons to be set aside.