1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3144 OF 2009 AND CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3145 OF 2009 AND CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3146 OF 2009 Mr. Rajeshkumar D. Mehara. ... Applicant. V/s. Mr. Chandrabushan M. Chaube & Anr. ... Respondents. Mr. I.S. Thakur for the Applicant. Mr. O.P. Dubey for Respondent No.1. Ms. P.P. Bhosle, APP for the State. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATED : 12th JANUARY 2010. P.C. :- Heard Mr. Thakur, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Applicant. The challenge is to the order issuing process on a complaint under Section 138 r/w. 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The order issuing process passed by the Magistrate has been confirmed in a Criminal Revision Application by the Additional Sessions Judge. 2. The only point canvassed before the Court below and reiterated before me is that the complainant states in the complaint that the cheque was given as a security by the accused. Upon such a pleading, the complaint is not maintainable and that is what the Supreme Court and this Court has been consistently holding as a matter of principle. 2 3. To my mind, the question as to whether the cheque was given as a security or not is something which need not be gone into finally at this stage, in the facts of this case. The Revisional Court was right in holding that the complaint averments and the documents which have been referred to by the complainant together with the reply to the statutory notice would reveal that it is not possible to conclusively determine that the cheque is given merely as a security. That is a matter which has must be decided at the trial. 4. This view cannot be said to be perverse or vitiated by any error apparent so as to call for interference in my inherent jurisdiction. Consequently, the application is dismissed. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.)