1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.552 OF 2009. 1. Dr.Purushottam Krushnaji Odhekar and another ... Petitioners. Versus Ramesh Baliram Salunke and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.N.B.Suryawanshi, advocate for the petitioners. Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, A.P.P. for the State. ... WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.553 OF 2009 Sau. Ranjana Uday Banchhod and another ... Petitioners. Versus Ramesh Baliram Salunke and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.N.B.Suryawanwhi, advocate for the petitioners Mrs. A.V.Gondhalekar, A.P.P. for the State. ... 2 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.573 OF 2009. Kamlakar Ramchandra Deshpande and others ... Petitioners. Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.S.P.Brahme, advocate for the petitioners. Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, A.P.P. for the State. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 02.09.2009. PER COURT 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. These three petitions are being decided together inasmuch as though the petitioners are different persons, yet, they arise out of the same complaint case instituted by the Respondent No.1 for offence U/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Though served, yet, the Respondent No.1 failed to appear in this Court. 3 3. The Respondent No.1 (complainant) filed a Criminal case instituted on private complaint which was registered as STC No.439/2008. The learned Judicial Magistrate issued process for offence U/s 138 of the N.I. Act, against the petitioners. They challenged the order of issuance of process by filing Criminal Revision Application No.130/2008 which came to be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsel Mr.N.B.Suryawanshi, Mr.S.P. Brahme, for the petitioners and learned counsel Mr.Mukul Kulkarni, for the Respondent No.2 and Mrs. A.V.Gondhalekar, learned A.P.P. for the Respondent No.3 (State). 5. The question involved in these petitions is short one. The petitioners are Directors and office bearers of Respondent No.2 (Cooperative Credit Society). The Respondent No. 1 (complainant) alleged in the private complaint that the Chairman and Vice Chairman along with 4 the Manager and the Executive Officer-cum- Director were authorised to issue cheques for and on behalf of the Respondent No.2 - Credit Society, by all the Directors. He had deposited certain amounts on various dates with the Respondent No.2 in a scheme called "Dam-duppat". Thus, the amounts were to be repaid after sixty six (66) months from date of the deposits and that too double of the deposited sums. He wanted to get back the deposited amounts in the month of October 2007 to pay Education fees of his son. The petitioners refused to pay the deposited amounts before completion of the agreed period under the scheme. He, therefore, requested to give over-draft loan. The petitioners sanctioned the over-draft loan after obtaining the receipts of the deposits. However, instead of giving the amount in cash, a post-dated cheque showing date of next month was issued in his favour. The cheque drawn on P.K.Anna Patil Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd., for Rs.54,000/- (Rupees fifty four thousand) was dishonoured. So he issued a demand notice. He received a false reply dated 12.1.2008 in response to the notice but not the 5 amount of the cheque. Consequently, he filed the private complaint for the offence U/s 138 of the N.I.Act. 6. It may be stated that the Respondent No.2 (Credit Society) was not under legal obligation to sanction the over-draft loan in favour of the Respondent No.1 (complainant). The cheque issued in pursuance to the Over-draft loan can not be said to have been issued in discharge of any existing debt or the liability to pay the complainant. The over-draft facility is for the convenience of the borrower. In the present case, the amount under the cheque was not being paid in discharge of any particular liability as such or in order to discharge any debt. The cheque was issued to facilitate the complainant to obtain financial aid in the hour of his need. Considering the peculiar fact situation of this case, it will have to be said that the ingredients of offence U/s 138 of the N.I. Act are totally absent. Needless to say, the issuance of process against the petitioners in the private complaint case instituted by 6 Respondent No.1 Ramesh Salunke is patently erroneous. 7. For the reasons aforestated, I have no hesitation in holding that on the very face of the averments in the complaint, no offence is made out against the petitioner and, therefore, the complaint proceedings are untenable. The impugned judgment and the process are, therefore, quashed. The complaint instituted by the Respondent No.1 - Ramesh Baliram Salunke, vide S.T.C.C.No.439/2008 is quashed. Rule made absolute accordingly. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/Crwp552.09