1 ndm 25 appln.106.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 106 OF 2010 B. Ramaswami. ... APPLICANT Vs. M/s. Grasim Industries Ltd. and ors. ... RESPONDENTS -------- Mr. Hemant S. Deshpande for Applicant. Mr. A.P. Mundargi i/b M/s. Wadia Ghandy and Company for Respondent No.1. Mr. K.V. Saste, APP for State. -------- CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 13 th April, 2010. P.C. 1 By way of present application, the Applicant prays for quashing the proceedings pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 23 rd Court, Esplanade, Mumbai vide Criminal Case No. No. 577 / SS of 2009. 2 Mr. Hemant S. Deshpande appearing on behalf of the Applicant submits that the Applicant had resigned from the accused No.1- company with effect from 09 th July, 2008 and the cheque has been 2 presented subsequent to the said resignation. He further submits that the Applicant cannot be made an accused in the said case. He further submits that a genuine request by the Applicant to the Respondent- complainant to represent the cheque so as to enable the company to honour it has not been considered. 3 From the perusal of the averments made in the complaint, it can clearly be seen that on the date on which according to the complainant, the cheque was issued to them and signed by the present Applicant, the Applicant was the director of the accused No.1. 4 Insofar as the second contention that the genuine request was not considered by the complainant is concerned, even today, the Court has asked the learned counsel to take instructions as to whether on representation of the cheque, the same would be honoured ? The reply to the said query was that since the Applicant is not the director of the accused No.1, he is not in a position to make the statement. 5 It is thus clear that the Applicant is indulging in approbate and reprobate. On one hand he says that the genuine request for representation was not considered and on the other hand when the specific query is put to him, he is trying to run away from the responsibility on the ground that he is no more director of the Company. Apart from the fact, that this issue is not germane to the proceedings 3 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The conduct of the Applicant does not appear to be of such nature so as to exercise the equitable jurisdiction in his favour. 6 No case is made out for interference. Hence rejected. [ B.R. GAVAI, J ]