acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2124 OF 2009 V. Sumathi Kutty ..Petitioner Vs. M/s Devi Krupa Builders & Developers &Anr. ..Respondent. --- Mr. Rajan Kakkara i/b Aarkey Legal, for the Petitioner. Mr. B.K. Bali Adv. i/b Bali Associaes, for respondent no.1. Smt. A.A. Mane, APP for the State. --- CORAM: V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED: 24 TH SEPTEMBER 2009 P.C.: By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in criminal revision application no.52 of 2006, whereby the revision application challenging the issuance of process for offence u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act came to be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel. The petition is based on probale defence which is taken as plank in support of the petition. Petitioner’s case is that the respondent no 1 1 complainant falsely instituted the complaint by misusing the cheque. The petitioner alleges that he had given reply to the demand notice. A copy of the said reply was not annexed to the complaint and therefore the respondent no.1(complainant) has suppressed the material fact. A copy of the demand notice dated 4.10.2004 addressed to the petitioner would show that the cheque was dishonoured and was returned with remark to the effect that the payment was stopped by the drawer. It, prima faci, appears that that the petitioner gave reply to the demand notice alleging that the cheques were stolen by the respondent no.1 from the premises of Kaustubham Complex and the said cheques were signed by her husband. Thus, she is neither signatory nor had issued the said cheques. It is well settled that in the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, issuance of process cannot be quashed only because the defence is available to accused. The petitioner is at liberty to raise her contentions before the trial court. If it is found that her contentions are truth bearing then the trial court may awar exemplary cost as would be permissible under the law. With above directions, the petition is dismissed. ( V. R. KINGAONKAR, J. ) 2 3