..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1230 OF 2008 Mrs.Surjeet Behl w/o. Mr.G.S.Behl. ..Petitioner. Versus Daewoo Anchor Electronics Ltd., and others. ..Respondents. .... Mr.P.M.Vyas, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Rajesh S. Patil, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr.A.S.Shitole, APP, for State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 11th November, 2008. DATED : 11th November, 2008. DATED : 11th November, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner - orig.accused No.5 and the learned Advocate for the respondent - orig.complainant. 2. The petitioner - orig.complainant is seeking quashing of process issued against the petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The said process was issued in Case No.1739/S/2002 which is pending before the learned A.C.M., 33rd Court, Ballard Pier, Mumbai. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the averments in the complaint were not enough to make out a case under ..(2).. Section 138 read with 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner. 3. On perusal of the complaint, it is seen that in para-3 therein it is stated that the accused Nos.2, 3, 4 & 5 were in-charge of day-to-day affairs and responsible for the conduct of the business of the accused No.1 firm at all relevant times. 4. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of the Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in the case of Vijay Khanna vs. Vijay Khanna vs. Vijay Khanna vs. Jumbo Electronics Co. Ltd., and another Jumbo Electronics Co. Ltd., and another Jumbo Electronics Co. Ltd., and another reported in 1984 CRI.L.J.1667 1984 CRI.L.J.1667 1984 CRI.L.J.1667. In the said case, process came to be quashed as no offence was made out from the allegations in the complaint. The said case was under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code. Reliance was placed on paras 10 & 11 of the said judgment, wherein it is laid down in what circumstances the process can be quashed. The decision in the case of Vijay Khanna Vijay Khanna Vijay Khanna (supra) on which reliance is placed is not in the case under the Negotiable Instruments Act. 5. Reliance was also placed on para-7 of the ..(3).. decision of the Single Judge of this High Court in the case of Ramesh vs. Gautam Ramesh vs. Gautam Ramesh vs. Gautam reported in I(2002) BC I(2002) BC I(2002) BC 719 719 719, wherein it is observed that where the allegations made in the complaint even if they are taken on their face value accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused in such case, the complaint can be quashed. As stated earlier, the specific case of the petitioner is that the averments in paragraph-3 of the complaint are not sufficient to establish the liability of the petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. However, in my opinion, the averments in paragraph-3 which are reproduced above, in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of N.Rangachari vs. Bharat N.Rangachari vs. Bharat N.Rangachari vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Sanchar Nigam Ltd. reported in 2007(5) SCC 108 2007(5) SCC 108 2007(5) SCC 108 would not warrant any interference in the order of process. The said case is under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. In the said case also it was contended that the averments in the complaint do not make out a case against the petitioner therein. In the said case in the complaint it was stated that the accused were incharge of and responsible to accused No.1 for conduct of the business of the accused company. In the said case, the Supreme Court in ..(4).. para-19 observed as under :- "We think that, in the circumstances, the High Court has rightly come to the conclusion that it is not a fit case for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaint. In fact, an advertence to Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act shows that on the other elements of an offence under Section 138 being satisfied, the burden is on the Board of Directors or the Officers incharge of the affairs of the company to show that they are not liable to be convicted. Any restriction on their power or existence of any special circumstance that makes them not liable is something that is peculiarly within their knowledge and it is for them to establish at the trial such a restriction or to show that at the relevant time they were not incharge of the affairs of the company. Reading the complaint as a whole, we are satisfied that it is a case where the contentions sought to be raised by the appellant can only be dealt with after the conclusion of the trial." ..(5).. 6. In the present case, looking to the averments in para-3 which are reflected above and the entire complaint and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of N.Rangachari N.Rangachari N.Rangachari (supra), in my opinion no case is made out for interference. Hence, Writ Petition is rejected. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)