IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1663 OF 2008 Mr.Udaysinh Virsenrao Gaikwad .. Petitioner Vs. Mr.Chandrakant Kashinath Janjire and another .. Respondents Mr.Parag B. Shelke for the petitioner. Mr.J.P.Yagnik, A.P.P for the State. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 16th September 2008. : 16th September 2008. : 16th September 2008. P.C.: . Heard advocate for the petitioner. The petitioner has been arraigned as an accused in a complaint filed by the 1st respondent under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The process was issued on the said complaint. The revision application filed by the petitioner for challenging the order of issuing process has been rejected by the Sessions Court. 2. The first submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the cheque on the basis of which complaint was filed was misplaced by the petitioner and infact a complaint was filed by the petitioner with the police prior to the date on which : 2 : cheque was sought to be encashed. his submission is that the cheque which was misplaced has been misused by the 1st respondent. The 2nd submission is that the cheque was not issued towards a legally recoverable debt. The third submission is that the cheque was dishonoured on the ground that the payment of the cheque was stopped. He submitted that instructions were given by the petitioner for stopping the payment of cheque as the said cheque was misplaced. 3. I have considered the submissions. Whether the cheque which is subject matter of the complaint was misplaced or lost by the petitioner is a matter of evidence. Going by the averments made in the complaint, a cheque was issued by the petitioner which has been dishonoured. Whether there was any legally recoverable debt or not is again a question of evidence. In so far as third submission is concerned regarding stopping the payment of amount under the cheque, the law is not a in favour of the petitioner. However, it is for the petitioner to lead evidence to show under what circumstances instructions were given by him for stopping the payment of amount covered by the cheque. At the stage of issuing process, the Court has to see averments made in the complaint, verification statement : 3 : and the documents produced alongwith the complaint. Taking the averments made in the complaint for its face value, the Court has to consider whether a case for proceeding against the accused is made out. Considering the averments made in the complaint, no fault can be found with the order passed by the learned Judge of issuing process. 4. The petition is rejected. It is however made clear that the contentions raised by the petitioner are expressly kept open which can be agitated by the petitioner at the time of trial. (A.S.Oka,J)