1 CRWP NO.265/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.265 OF 2010 Virendra s/o Khanderao Gaikwad, Age: 40 years, Occ. Business, r/o. House no.712, Pensionpura, Cantonment, Aurangabad. ...PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Kunjbihari s/o Badrinarayan Sharma, Age: 47 years, Occu. Lecturer & business, r/o. 1759, Lane No.2, Dhule. 2. Vice President, NASSCOM, Samruddhi Venture Park, Ground Floor, 13-16, Central MIDC Road, Andheri East Mumbai 400 093 3. The Joint Director and CPIO Government of India M/s Communication & Information Technology Department of Information Technology (Hq.) (Office of PIO (RTI) Electronics Niketan, 6, CGO Complex, New Delhi 110003 (Copy to be served through the Additional Solicitor General for Union of India High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad Building) ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr.Abhay Rathod, Adv., for the petitioner. Mr. S.P.Bramhe, Adv., for respondent no.1. ... 2 CRWP NO.265/2010 CORAM: A.H.JOSHI, J. Date: OCTOBER 11th, 2011 *** ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and is heard by consent. 2. The petitioner is praying for quashing the private complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act filed by respondent no.1. 3. According to learned Advocate for the petitioner, the act of respondent is out and out an act of cheating, and as initial cheating was not felt adequate, he has lodged a case for dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 4. Learned Advocate Mr.Rathod has tried to demonstrate that there did not exist any liability under the agreement, which had frustrated due to failure on the part of respondent no.1, to comply with the obligations on his part. 5. Admittedly, the trial has already advanced to the stage of recording of statements of accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and what has 3 CRWP NO.265/2010 remained is defence, if any, by the accused, and conclusion thereof. 6. At this stage, therefore, however manifest, according to the petitioner, is the abuse of law, being done by filing of the case by the respondent; yet, having permitted the trial to reach almost to its fag end, it would be grossly inappropriate to grant indulgence and interfere. 7. In the given situation, this Court declines to interfere. 8. Petition is dismissed. (A.H.JOSHI) JUDGE ... AGP/265-10crwp