2906crn1.10.odt 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUD ICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1 OF 2010 (Pradip Bisanlal Khandelwal Vs. The Khamgaon Urban CO-op. Bank) ........................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ........................................................................................................................................................................... Mr. J. B. Kasat, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. S. P. Deshpande, Advocate for the respondent. ....... CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATED : 29TH JUNE 2010 Heard respective Counsel for the parties. An application made to the trial Court during the pendeny of the trial by the accused for rejection of the complaint has been turned down by the trial Court in view of the order passed on 01/10/2009. The order passed by the trial Court at an interlocutory stage, has been confirmed by the revisional Court dealing with the criminal revision No. 155 of 2009 in view of the order dated 02/12/2009. The respondent-original complainant lodged a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused. The complaint is in respect of dishonour of cheque amounting to Rs. 1,01,000/-. On receipt of the notice in respect of the complaint initiated by the respondent-Bank, the accused caused appearance and presented an application on 24/8/2009 requesting the Court to reject the complaint. It is the contention of the accused that he has deposited an amount of Rs. 1,95,000/- with the Bank during the relevant period. It is specifically contended that Rs. 1,95,000/- has been deposited with the Bank since 4/9/2007 till 21/10/2008. It is thus contended that in view of deposit of the amount with the Bank, the complaint presented by the complainant-Bank is not entertainable. 2906crn1.10.odt 2/3 The complainant-Bank has opposed the contention raised in the application contending that the case put up by the accused does not fall within the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of C. C. Alavi Haji Vs. Palapety Muhammad and another reported in 2008 (1) Mh. L. J. (SC) 44. It is contended by the respondent-Bank that although the notice was served in respect of dishonour of cheque on 16/6/2008, the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- is deposited only after four months. In fact, the liability on the accused is to offer the amount within fifteen days after the receipt of notice. It is, thus contended that deposit of amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- cannot be related to the cheque in question which is a subject matter of the complaint. The trial Court accepted the contention raised by the respondent-Bank and proceeded to reject the application. I have perused the order passed by the trial Court as well as the revisional Court. Considering the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that no interference is required to be caused at this interlocutory stage of the proceedings. It would be open for the applicant-accused to raise appropriate defence before the trial Court during the course of the trial and it would be appropriate for the trial Court to consider such contention on its own merit and in accordance with the law. It is also further clarified that the decision rendered by the trial Court which has been confirmed by the revisional Court at the interlocutory stage, shall not be an impediment to consider such defence, if any, raised by the accused. With these observations, no interference is required to be caused. The application is devoid of merit and hence rejected. The trial Court is directed to decide the pending complaint expeditiously. JUDGE 2906crn1.10.odt 3/3 wwl