1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3415 OF 2011 Vandana V. Sonavane Petitioner versus Midas Constructions and another Respondents Mr.D.S.Sapkale for petitioner. Mr.Ganesh Gole with Sanjay Singh, R.K.Patkar and Rashmi Gajwani for respondent no.1. Mr.A.S.Shitole, APP for State. CORAM : R.V.MORE, J. DATE : 16th November 2011 PC : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and learned APP for State. The writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaint and criminal proceedings initiated by respondent no.1 by filing complaint bearing C.C.No.3505/SS/2011 on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate, 50th Court, Vikroli, Mumbai. The said complaint is filed under section 138 read with section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) annexed at Exhibit-C submits that the cheques in question were issued to one Gaikwad and Swapnil Patil and not to the original complainant-respondent no.1 herein. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1, however, opposed 2 the objection by relying upon the averments made in the complaint. A perusal of the complaint shows that the respondent no.1-complainant has disbursed Rs.54,15,315/- to the petitioner-accused by cheque from complainant's account. The particulars are given in paragraph 4 of the MOU.. This amount was given as the petitioner represented that she needs finance. She represented that the petrol pump which is run by her, was not in satisfactory condition and on account of financial constraints she is not in a position to maintain the required stock and/or make the payment in advance to the HPCL for supply of petrol, diesel etc.. She also represented the complainant that she has to complete some civil work and therefore in order to raise finance, she desires to convert the proprietary business into a partnership business, and therefore she wants to induct a person as a partner, who is financially sound to invest the money in the business by becoming partner. This transaction could not work out and thereafter the petitioner handed over two cheques of Rs.46.00 lakhs and Rs. 8,15,315/- respectively in discharge of her liability to respondent no.1- complainant. The cheques were presented for realization, however, the same were returned back by the bank with return memo for the reason "payment stopped by the drawer". The respondent no.1 after issuance of legal notice filed the complaint. 3. After going through the complaint minutely, I am of the view that it makes out a prima facie offence under section 138 r/w section 141 of the said Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that a sum of Rs.54,15,315/- was paid to the petitioner from the complainant-respondent no.1's account. The contention of the petitioner that blank cheques were not given to the respondent no.1 and the same were issued to Mr.Gaikwad and Mr.Swapnil Patil, can be considered at the time of trial. At this stage, the Court is obliged to consider whether the complaint discloses an offence or otherwise. 3 4. In addition to this, the plea of the petitioner-accused is already recorded. The respondent no.1-complainant has already filed affidavit of evidence and the complaint is adjourned for cross examination by the accused. The complaint is at the stage of trial. The petitioner-accused has approached this Court belatedly. 5. In view of the same, I am not inclined to interfere in the writ jurisdiction and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (R.V.MORE, J.)