Complainant Seeks Recall After Cheque-Bounce Process Was Quashed in Its Absence; Bombay High Court Refuses, Says Earlier Order Was Passed on Merits
Can High Court Recall an Ex-Parte Criminal Order Passed on Merits? Bombay High Court Rejects Pico Capital’s Recall Application
Facts
The proceedings arose from Interim Application No. 2891 of 2026 in Writ Petition No. 3189 of 2014, filed by Pico Capital Private Limited, formerly known as Mode Export Private Limited. The original writ petitioner was Vinod Kumar Chaturvedi, Managing Director of Usher Agro Limited. Pico Capital Private
Pico Capital had instituted a criminal complaint under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
According to the complaint, Vinod Kumar Chaturvedi, being CMD of Usher Agro Limited, had induced Pico Capital to make an inter-corporate deposit of ₹150 lakh (₹1.5 crore) in Swajay Finance Pvt. Ltd., alleged to be his “front company.” Pico Capital alleged that Chaturvedi represented that he would be personally responsible for repayment and also pledged shares of Usher Agro Limited as security. Pico Capital Private
The Metropolitan Magistrate issued process against the accused. Chaturvedi challenged that process before the Bombay High Court.
On 18 September 2025, the High Court, noting Pico Capital’s absence on multiple dates and after examining the merits, quashed and set aside the issue-process order. Pico Capital Private
Pico Capital then filed the present application seeking recall and setting aside of that ex-parte order. Pico Capital Private
Central Issue
The controversy was essentially:
Can the Bombay High Court recall its earlier criminal order quashing the Magistrate’s process where the complainant was absent when the matter was finally heard, but the High Court had decided the writ petition on merits?
The case therefore involved the distinction between:
recall of an order because of procedural unfairness, and
review/reconsideration of an order already passed on merits.
Pico Capital’s Arguments
Pico Capital contended that it had actively contested the writ petition from 2014 onwards.
Its absence at the final hearing was said to have resulted from bona fide circumstances involving a change of advocate. The new advocate was allegedly unable to formally enter appearance because an NOC had not been obtained from the previous advocate.
Pico Capital further claimed that it had no knowledge that the matter had been circulated or listed for final hearing. Pico Capital Private Pico Capital Private
It argued that the High Court possessed the power to recall an order where circumstances disclosed:
- procedural irregularity;
- denial of a fair hearing;
- violation of natural justice; or
- miscarriage of justice.
Pico Capital relied upon the Supreme Court decisions in Vishal Agarwal v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Mahavir alias Avnish v. State of Madhya Pradesh. Pico Capital Private
Respondent’s Arguments
Vinod Kumar Chaturvedi opposed recall.
He pointed out that the recall application had allegedly been filed after an inordinate delay of almost nine months, without sufficient explanation.
More fundamentally, he argued that Section 362 CrPC barred the High Court from altering or reviewing a final criminal judgment or order except for correction of clerical or arithmetical errors.
According to him, Section 482’s inherent jurisdiction could not be invoked to circumvent the express statutory prohibition contained in Section 362.
He relied upon Sooraj Devi v. Pyare Lal, Simrikhia v. Dolley Mukherjee, Mohammed Zakir v. Shabana, Ajay Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, and the Allahabad High Court’s decision in Shiv Poojan Upadhyay v. State of U.P. Pico Capital Private
Court’s Analysis
Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale examined the earlier order sought to be recalled and found that it was not merely an order passed for default because the complainant was absent.
That distinction was decisive.
The earlier Court had examined:
- the allegations contained in Pico Capital’s complaint;
- the documents forming part of the record;
- Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act; and
- their application to the facts.
Only after considering the factual and legal merits had the High Court quashed the Magistrate’s process order. Pico Capital Private
Thus, although Pico Capital was absent, the underlying writ petition had nevertheless been decided on merits.
Absence at Final Hearing Was Not Enough
The Court also considered Pico Capital’s explanation regarding its prior participation in the proceedings.
It acknowledged that some adjournments had been taken jointly and that some hearings had been adjourned because of paucity of Court time.
However, the record also demonstrated that Pico Capital itself had sought adjournments on at least three occasions:
23 February 2016, 27 June 2016 and 8 August 2016.
Most importantly, it remained undisputed that Pico Capital was not represented on the date when the writ petition was finally heard and decided. Pico Capital Private
The Court nevertheless found that this circumstance did not, by itself, establish an infirmity warranting recall.
Recall Versus Review
The judgment is important because Pico Capital attempted to invoke the Court’s recall jurisdiction on the basis that it had not received an effective opportunity of hearing.
The Court did not accept that characterization on the facts.
The earlier judgment was a reasoned merits-based adjudication rather than a mechanical ex-parte disposal. The complaint and underlying documents had been examined and the applicable provisions of the NI Act had been considered.
Therefore, the mere fact that one side was absent at the final hearing did not persuade the Court to reopen the concluded merits determination.
The Court ultimately recorded:
“There is no infirmity in the Order, and no cogent reason is made out justifying recall of the said Order.” Pico Capital Private
Precedent Analysis
Vishal Agarwal v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Mahavir alias Avnish v. State of Madhya Pradesh were invoked by Pico Capital to establish the High Court’s ability to recall an order where procedural irregularity, denial of fair hearing, breach of natural justice or miscarriage of justice is demonstrated. Pico Capital Private
The respondent relied upon Sooraj Devi v. Pyare Lal, Simrikhia v. Dolley Mukherjee, Mohammed Zakir v. Shabana and Ajay Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh to support the proposition that inherent powers cannot be used to bypass the restriction contained in Section 362 CrPC against alteration or review of a criminal judgment after it has been signed. Pico Capital Private
Significantly, the Court ultimately disposed of the application primarily on the facts and character of the earlier order: it had been passed after examination of the merits, and no sufficient basis for recall was established. Pico Capital Private
Important Qualification
The judgment should not be read as laying down an absolute proposition that a High Court can never recall a criminal order.
Pico Capital itself relied on authorities recognizing recall jurisdiction in cases involving procedural irregularity or denial of hearing.
What the Bombay High Court held in this particular case was narrower: the facts did not disclose sufficient grounds to recall the earlier merits-based order.
That distinction between a genuine procedural recall and an impermissible attempt to reopen a merits adjudication is central to understanding the judgment.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court dismissed Pico Capital’s recall application.
The Court found that the order dated 18 September 2025 had been passed after examining the complaint, documents and applicable provisions of Sections 138 and 141 of the NI Act.
Although Pico Capital was unrepresented when the matter was finally heard, the Court found no infirmity and no cogent reason warranting recall.
Consequently, the earlier order quashing the Magistrate’s issue-process order against Vinod Kumar Chaturvedi remained undisturbed. Pico Capital Private
Case Details
Case: Pico Capital Private Limited v. Vinod Kumar Chaturvedi & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:39870
Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
Proceeding: Interim Application No. 2891 of 2026 in Writ Petition No. 3189 of 2014
Judge: Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale
Reserved: 22 September 2026
Pronounced: 30 September 2026 Pico Capital Private
Underlying proceedings: Complaint under Sections 138 and 141, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Amount involved: ₹150 lakh inter-corporate deposit.
Relief sought: Recall and setting aside of the ex-parte order dated 18 September 2025 which had quashed the Magistrate’s issue-process order.
Result: Recall application dismissed; earlier quashing order remains operative.
