1 ndm 2 appln.3240.09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3240 OF 2009 Rao and Associates and ors. ... APPLICANTS Vs. Rohit Girish Gokhale and anr. ... RESPONDENTS -------- Mr. M.S. Mohite i/b Mr. H.E. Palwe for Applicants. Mr. S.S. Kulkarni for Respondent No.1. Mr. K.V. Saste, APP for State. -------- CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 13 th April, 2010. P.C. 1 The Applicants challenge the order dated 06 th December, 2006 thereby issuing process against the present Applicants. 2 In a complaint filed by the Respondents for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the Sections 420, 418 and 403 of the Indian Penal Code, the learned Magistrate had issued process. Being aggrieved thereby, the present application has been filed. 2 3 The learned counsel for the Applicants submits that insofar as the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, there is no material to prima facie establish the ingredients to constitute the said offence. He further submits that since, the accused are residing beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate, who had issued process, the learned Magistrate prior to issuance of the process ought to have conducted an inquiry as contemplated under the said Section before issuing process. He further submits that even the verification is an affidavit and therefore, not in accordance with law. 4 In the present case, it is to be noted that before issuance of process, the learned Magistrate had directed the complainant to lead evidence. I therefore, find that the learned Magistrate had complied with the amended provisions of Section 202 as he had conducted the inquiry as contemplated under Section 202 before issuance of process. 5 Insofar as the contention regarding the verification being not in accordance with law is concerned, it can be seen that before issuance of process, the learned Magistrate had taken into consideration the evidence led on behalf of the complainant. 6 Insofar as the third contention regarding material not being available for the charge under Section 420 is concerned, from the averments made in paragraph 10, it could not be said that there are 3 averment so as to prima facie show the ingredients to constitute an offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 7 In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to entertain the present application, the same is therefore, dismissed. 8 Needless to state that this Court has considered the matter only from the view point of quashing the proceedings and nothing observed herein, shall be construed as observation on the merits of the matter. [ B.R. GAVAI, J ]