1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2163/2009. Sow.Seema Uttamrao Gaikwad - APPLICANT VERSUS Annasaheb s/o Harischandra Gaike - RESPONDENT ***** Mr.B.V.Thombre, Advocate for Applicant; Mr.V.R.Dhorde, Advocate for Respondent. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 23rd September, 2009. PER COURT : 1) Rule, Rule made returnable forthwith and by consent of parties heard finally. 2) The learned Counsel feels aggrieved by prosecution in terms of section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, vide S.C.C.No. 454/2008 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vaijapur. The Counsel submits that the prosecution is a total falsehood. It is elongated form of prosecution 2 to harass, humiliate the accused, who resides at Aurangabad and attempt is made to effect service of summons on the address of Newasa. The Counsel indicate the amount, subject matter of the cheque, is indeed clear, for which he had invited my attention to the two receipts for Rs.10,000/- each dated 16.12.2007 and 27.12.2007. The Counsel submits the subsequent payments are not accounted for and the cheque was not returned though it was so demanded by the accused/applicant hearing. 3) In a matter of this character, in terms of Sections 140 and 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the accused/applicant is at liberty to raise these defences before the learned Judge including seeking discharge. The receipts to which reference is given, is subject to scrutiny and that cannot be accepted as gospel truth. The stand/defence is in reply to the statutory notice in terms of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, naturally, the learned Judge seized with the matter will look into these 3 aspects. The proceedings as sought to be quashed cannot be so done as there is no abuse of process or that the complaint does not disclose any case against the accused/applicant. 4) Criminal Application dismissed. Rule discharged. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE bdv/cran2163.09