-:1:- IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2122 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO. 2122 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO. 2122 OF 2008 Smt. Archana Jairamdas Bathija. ... Applicant. V/s. Shri Vishal Ashoklal Kachhela & Anr. ... Respondents. Mr. Vijay Bolinjkar i/b. Mr. Himanshu Takke and S.M. Kamble for the Applicant. Mrs. A.A. Mane, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM CORAM CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL,J. : K.U. CHANDIWAL,J. : K.U. CHANDIWAL,J. DATE DATE DATE : 011TH AUGUST, 2008. : 011TH AUGUST, 2008. : 011TH AUGUST, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : . Heard learned Counsel. 2. The complainant claims to have advanced a loan of Rs.1,50,000/- to the accused and in discharge thereof, the accused has issued the cheque in question (Exhibit 20) dated 14.8.2006. Curiously, in the very transaction, the complainant approached Police against the accused and canvassed that she had advanced Rs.50,000/- to the accused and in response to said compliance, the accused has issued the cheque. These two aspects do not match each other. They create and raise a suspicion about the conduct of the complainant. The accused has put in DW-2 Manoj Ashoklal Takktani as a witness who has canvassed that it was the accused who had handed over five blank signed cheques to him and since he needed financial -:2:- assistance from the complainant, those five cheques and three more cheques from his own account were handed over to the complainant for securing loan. It is on record, there is no agreement or document between the complainant or the accused to indicate existence of legally enforceable liability between the accused and or the complainant. That apart, there is variance recorded by the learned Judge about the cheque number appearing as 945142 while the cheque produced at Exhibit 20 is bearing No.045142. The learned Counsel submits that it is a typographical error. However, no attempt is made to cure such mistake. The findings recorded by the learned Judge while passing the order dated 3rd April 2008 does not require any interference. 3. Leave to appeal is rejected. (K.U. (K.U. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.) CHANDIWAL,J.) CHANDIWAL,J.)