1 wp3197-10 jpc/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3197 OF 2010 Nitin Rathore .. Petitioner Versus Compuage Infocom Ltd. and others .. Respondents Mr. R. R. Mishra for the Petitioner Mr. S.A.Shaikh, APP for the Respondent-State CORAM : N. D. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 3rd February, 2011 P.C.: 1. Heard learned Counsel Mr. Mishra for the petitioner and Mr. Shaikh, APP for the State. 2. This petition is filed by this petitioner under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 for quashing of two proceedings which are pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Girgaon in the complaint cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1981 “popularly known as cheque bouncing case”, mainly on the ground that the said court has no territorial jurisdiction so also in one case the cheque amount and date have been tampered and the amount Rs.20,000/- is scored out and made Rs. 2,00,000/-. 3. Admittedly the notices as required under section 138 of the N.I. Act had been issued to the petitioner and the petitioner was served with the summons. The petitioner replied to those notices. 2 wp3197-10 He also gave his appearance before the trial Court in both the cases. His plea was recorded. He pleaded no guilty. However, he admitted that he did not make any defence when he was asked under Section 251 Cr. P. C., but the some defences appears to have been raised in this petition for quashing the proceedings. Thus, for the first time the defences are coming in the petition. Only the bondfide petition is to be entertained. The Petition must be full of bonafide and disclosing the facts and also of certain legal grounds. 4. Admittedly the cheques were issued and signed by the petitioner. They are the leaves from his cheque book. Presumptions are stringent against the defaulter but more favourable to the complainant under the N.I. Act. Filing of petition or any proceedings should not hamper the proceedings before the trial Court which is competent to take cognizance and go on with the matter. However, since the issue of jurisdiction has been raised, the petitioner can be entertained on the condition that the petition deposits in this court an admitted amount of Rs.50,000/- in one case and Rs.20,000/- in another case of cheque bouncing as complained in two cases totaling Rs.70,000/. Hence the following order, would meet the ends of justice. 1. The petitioner shall deposit Rs.70,000/- in this court within four weeks time. On depositing the said amount notice shall be directed to the respondents. 2. It is also infomed that the warrants have been issued 3 wp3197-10 against the petitioner by the learned Trial Court. However, the same cannot be cancelled by this Court and could be cancelled only by the Court which has issued the warrant. However opportunity is given to the petitioner to make an application to the trial court for cancellation of the warrant and the same may be considered by the Trial court in accordance with law . 3. It is made clear that no interim stay is granted to the petitioner. The petitioner shall be at liberty to move this court on depositing the amount of Rs.70,000/- as condition precedent to issue notice to the respondents. 5. Failure to deposit the amount of Rs.70,000/- as directed above within four weeks, the petition stand automatically dismissed without further reference to the Court. ( N. D. DESHPANDE, J. )