1 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3401 OF 2010 Gohel Travels Through its proprietor Shri Manjit Sudhist Kumar ...Petitioner. v/s. Cholamandalam DBS Finances Ltd. And Ors. ...Respondents. Ms Vrunda V. Surve ,adv. For the Petitioner. Smt. V.R.Bhosale, APP for the Respondent No.1. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : MARCH 23, 2011. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2 Respondent no.2 filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the J.M.F.C., Pune and it was registered as S.C.C. No.10048/08. Respondent no.3 Vijay Gohel is accused no.1. He had obtained auto loan of Rs.10 lac. Proprietor of M/s Gohel Travels had allegedly issued a cheque for repayment of the dues by the accused no.1 Vijay Gohel in favour of the complainant. As the cheque was dishonoured and payment was not made in spite of service of the statutory notice, the complaint was filed. In the complaint, accused no.2 was shown as proprietor of M/s Gohel Travels without giving name 2 of the proprietor possibly because cheque which was issued by him did not disclose name of the person issuing cheque. It was signed only as proprietor of M/s Gohel Travels. The learned Magistrate issued process against both the accused. That order was challenged by the petitioner by filing the revision application before the Sessions Court. One of the grounds was that complaint could not be filed against a firm without name of the person who is responsible for the act. That revision application was rejected by the Sessions Court. 3 The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the complainant has also filed an application for amendment and he has sought permission to add name of Manjeet as proprietor of M/s Gohel Travels. That application is still pending. It does not appear to be case of the petitioner that M/s Gohel Travels is a company registered under the Companies Act or partnership firm registered under the Partnership Act. Manjeet claims to the proprietor of Gohel Travels. Proprietorship concern is not a statutory person or a legal entity. Individual, who is proprietor or owner of such concern is responsible. It is possible that when the complaint was filed, name of the proprietor of M/s Gohel Travels was not known and, therefore, his name was not shown and afterwards when the name was disclosed, the complainant has 3 approached the trial Court for appropriate amendment. From the complaint it appears that the present petitioner had issued cheque, which was dishonoured. Whether that cheque was issued in discharge of any legally enforceable debt or liability or it was only as security of some thing, which may not attract provisions of section 138, can not be decided in the present petition. That can be decided during the trial of the case. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the present petition. 4 In the result, petition stands dismissed. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)