1 Criminal Writ Petition No.469 of 2011 with Criminal Writ Petition No.470 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.469 OF 2011 Ram W/o.Sunderlal Gujrathi, Age-48 years, Occu-Business, C/o.Shri.Ram Sunderlal Gujrathi, R/o.Gujrathi Galli, Lal Khamb Chowk, Chopda, Tal.Chopda, Dist.Jalgaon APPLICANT VERSUS 1. Om Shanti Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Chopda, Tq.Chopda, Dist. Jalgaon, Through its Manager, Rajesh S/o.Damodardas Gujrathi, Age-43 years, Occu-Service, R/o.Chopda, Tq.Chopda, Dist.Jalgaon 2. The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENTS Mr.C.R.Deshpande, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms.Y.M.Kshirsagar, learned A.P.P. for respondent State Respondent no.1 absent, even though duly served. WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.470 OF 2011 Pritibala W/o.Ram Gujrathi, Age-42 years, Occu-Trade, C/o.Shri.Ram Sunderlal Gujrathi, R/o.Gujrathi Galli, Chopda, Tal.Chopda, Dist.Jalgaon APPLICANT 2 Criminal Writ Petition No.469 of 2011 with Criminal Writ Petition No.470 of 2011 VERSUS 1. Om Shanti Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Chopda, Tq.Chopda, Dist. Jalgaon, Through its Manager, Rajesh S/o.Damodardas Gujrathi, Age-43 years, Occu-Service, R/o.Chopda, Tq.Chopda, Dist.Jalgaon 2. The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENTS Mr.C.R.Deshpande, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms.Y.M.Kshirsagar, learned A.P.P. for respondent State. Respondent no.1 absent, even though duly served. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 20/10/2011 PER COURT : 1. As the common question require consideration in both these writ petitions, both these writ petitions to be disposed of by common order. 2. The respondent no.1 herein has filed STC No.923/2009 and STC No.924/2009 before the learned J.M.F.C. Chopda, Dist. Jalgaon, for the offence punishable u/s. 138 of The N.I.Act. In both the complaints, there are allegations that as the writ petitioners herein have approached respondent no.1 for a financial aid, loan of Rs. 25,00,000/- and Rs.15,00,000/- respectively was granted in favour of 3 Criminal Writ Petition No.469 of 2011 with Criminal Writ Petition No.470 of 2011 these petitioners. It further appears that at the time of issuance of loan, certain documents were executed. As in the stipulated period, loan was not repaid, cheques issued by the petitioners herein against the loan obtained by them, were deposited in the Bank. The said cheques were dishonoured and returned back to the respondent no.1 with the requisite bank memo. Thereafter statutory notice was issued by the respondent no.1 to these petitioners, but as no compliance was made for repayment of the due amount at the hands of these petitioners, the respondent no.1 had filed STC No.923/2009 and 924/2009. It appears that, after verification of the authorized person of the first respondent, learned Trial Court issued process u/s. 138 of The N.I.Act. These petitioners have questioned the correctness of the issuance of process by preferring revision application no.32/2010 and 33/2010 before the learned Sessions Judge, Jalgaon. By way of judgment and order dated 19/04/2011, both these criminal revision applications were dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, which are impugned in these petitions. 3. It is urged across the bar by pointing out to the observations of the learned Revisional Court in para no.6 towards the fact that the application of section 20 of The N.I.Act is un-warranted and prayed to remand these matters to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Amalner for its re-consideration. 4 Criminal Writ Petition No.469 of 2011 with Criminal Writ Petition No.470 of 2011 4. The respondent no.1 remained absent even though duly served. I have perused the record and proceeding produced before this Court. Law is very settled on the point that the learned Trial Magistrate to issue process on the basis of avernments made in the complaint and the verification statement recorded in support of the avernments in that complaint. Further the law is settled on the point that on perusal of the avernments in the complaint, so also in the verification statement of the complainant, if it discloses prima facie commission of offence, then the learned Magistrate to issue process in accordance with Law. It is also settled legal position that at the time of issuance of process, the Trial Court need not consider/anticipate what would be the defence of the persons, who are arrayed in these complaint as an accused. 5. In the light of this settled legal position, and on perusal of the avernments in the complaint and verification statement of the complainant recorded in support of his submissions, prima facie it discloses commission of an offence punishable u/s. 138 of The N.I.Act. Thus in the light of this, no interference is required so far as order of issuance of process, passed by the learned J.M.F.C. in both these complaints is concerned. In view of this, these petitions ought to be dismissed as sans any merit. 5 Criminal Writ Petition No.469 of 2011 with Criminal Writ Petition No.470 of 2011 6. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner tried to urge across the bar that the observations of the learned Revisional Court, made in para no.6, may come in his way while putting his defence during the trial. It is made clear that the learned Trial Court, not to influence with the observations of the learned Revisional Court and to dispose of the trial in accordance with law and as per the evidence which would be led before the Trial Court. With this clarification, both these petitions, stand dismissed. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/OCT.2011/cri.w.p.469-11