{1} Cri. Application No.3799/2011 drp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3799 OF 2011 Ashwini Amol Jadhav APPLICANT VERSUS M/s T.S.Deshmukh & Brothers RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.N.B.Narwade, Advocate for the applicant ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 16 th September 2011 PER COURT: 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 09.08.2011 passed by JMFC, Ahmednagar below Exhibit-36 in STC No.2978/2010. By the impugned order, learned JMFC has rejected the request of the applicant to direct the complainant to array other parters of the partnership firm as accused in the complaint filed u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. Perused the {2} Cri. Application No.3799/2011 application and the impugned order as well as the complaint. The purport of the complaint is that the applicant is acting as a partner of the said firm and was controlling the day to day management of the said firm. It is further alleged that during the regular course of business transactions, certain cheques, signed by the applicant, were given to the complainant, however, on presentation in the bank, the same were bounced and hence, after completing the necessary formalities the complaint came to be filed, in which after recording verification, process was issued against the applicant. 3. It appears that after service of summons the applicant appeared in the complaint and filed application at Exhibit-36 contending that the partnership firm is a necessary party and hence seek addition of the same as accused in the complaint. 4. Law is very settled that in absence of averments in the complaint regarding participation of the partners of the partnership firm or directors of a company in day to day transactions, need not be arrayed as accused in the complaint to {3} Cri. Application No.3799/2011 be filed in the criminal court. Bare reading of the complaint does not disclose that there is any averment that the other partners of the said firm have participated in the day to day transactions of the said firm. Considering the averments in the complaint, rightly the other partners are not arrayed as accused in the complaint. Secondly, the accused cannot compel the complainant to add others as accused. In view of this legal position, the application Exhibit-36 is rightly rejected by the trial court. In the premise, no interference is called for in the impugned order. Consequently, the application which is sans merits stands rejected. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B11/criapln3799-11