1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 720 of 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. of 2011 Indukant Atmaram Deshpande .. Applicant Versus Shri Sainath Mahila Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents Mr. A.M.Kulkarni for Applicant. Mr.H.J.Dedia APP for State. CORAM:- R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED:- 7th JULY, 2011. P.C. 1. The respondents faced trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the Court of 3rd Judicial Magistrate, I Class, Sangli in S.C.C.No.1645 of 2008. The learned Judicial Magistrate, I Class, at the end of the trial acquitted all the accused except the original accused no.5 i.e. present respondent no.5 and directed that the case will continue against the respondent no.5. This Order dated 27th 2 April, 2011 is the subject matter of the appeal which is filed, as also the criminal application which is filed. After having perused the record, it is seen that the applicant had kept certain monies with the respondent no.1 on a fixed deposit and certain proceeding took place in the Consumer Court and in the said Consumer Court, some arrangements were arrived at by which it was decided that the respondent no.2 will pay part of the amount and accordingly, two cheques, one of Rs.15,000/- and another of Rs.2,50,000/- was delivered to the applicant. Those cheques were issued from personal account of respondent no.2 and were signed by the respondent no.2 in her personal capacity and the cheque of Rs.2,50,000/- got dishonoured. On account of that the complaint came to be filed against the respondent i.e. the Credit Society and all the Directors. 2. The learned Judicial Magistrate, I Class has acquitted all the respondents except the respondent no.5. It is seen that the impugned cheque was issued on respondent no.2 from her personal account whereas the complaint came to be filed against the credit society and all other Directors including the respondent no.2. In my view, the very foundation of the case lodged under Section 138 of the 3 Negotiable Instruments Act is defective because the impugned cheque came to be issued by respondent no.2 from her personal account. Things would have been different if the complaint would have been filed against the respondent no.2 alone making her responsible for the dishonour of the said cheque. The view taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate, I Class, is proper. No interference is required. 3. In the Course of argument, learned Counsel, Mr. Kulkarni appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that before the Consumer Forum, the applicant was made to believe that these two cheques would render her some relief and it is on that account the cheques came to be deposited. According to him respondent no.2, made the applicant to believe that the said cheques would be duly honoured. According to him respondent no.2 has practiced fraud on the applicant. At this stage, it will not be proper for this Court to accept this argument and/or record any finding. If the applicant feels that he has some remedy against respondent no.2 on the ground that respondent no.2 has practiced fraud on the applicant, the applicant is free to take steps against Respondent No.2. This Court has not 4 expressed any view on this submission of learned Advocate Mr. Kulkarni. 4. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the application is hereby dismissed. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)