1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4026 OF 2010 ALONGWITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3662 OF 2010 Tarun Gandhi .... Petitioner. V/s The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .... Respondents. Mr. Amit Desai, Senior Counsel with Mr. Sagar Divekar, advocate, Mr. Vikrant Singh Negi, advocate i/b Trilegal for the Petitioner. Mr. Vivek Patil, advocate i/b Krishnamurthy & Co. for Respondent No.2. Mrs. V.R. Bhosale, APP for the State. CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 17th September, 2010 P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.2. 2 2. Petitioner is challenging the order of issuance of process by the learned Magistrate, 12th Court, Bandra in Criminal Complaint No.5818/SS/09. 3. It is firstly submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner that there were no requisite averments in the complaint for the purpose of attracting provisions of section 138 read with section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Secondly, it is submitted that the Petitioner had resigned before issuance of cheque. Thirdly, it is submitted that the inquiry under section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code had not been held. 4. I have perused the complaint. In my view, necessary averments for the purpose of attracting the provisions of section 138 read with section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act have been made by the complainant in para 3 and, therefore, the first submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner cannot be accepted. Secondly, as far as question of verification is concerned, that issue will have to be decided at the final hearing of the trial. Thirdly, so far as inquiry under section 202 is concerned, in the order dated 19/04/2010, the learned Magistrate has mentioned that the inquiry under section 202 of the Cr.P.C. was conducted and, thereafter, the process was issued. Hence, it is not possible to interfere with the order of issuance of process. 3 5. Both these applications are dismissed. All contentions raised by both the parties are kept open. 6. Both the applications are accordingly disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.)