1 (crim. WP 930 of 2010) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 930 OF 2010 Mr.Krishnakumar Agarwal ...Petitioner Vs. M/s. Hardik Industrial Corporation and Anr. ...Respondents ****** Mr.M.S. Prasad for Petitioner Mr.Rajesh More -APP for the State ****** CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED:18TH NOVEMBER, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. 2. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, who was pleased to allow the application filed by the complainant for adding the applicant as a co-accused in his application under section 319 of Cr.P.C. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that no averments are made against 2 (crim. WP 930 of 2010) the present Petitioner in the entire complaint and for the first time an application was made by the Complainant for proceeding against the Petitioner under section 319 of Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the learned Magistrate rejected the application filed by the Complainant and, therefore, the Sessions Court ought not to have interfered with the order passed by the learned Magistrate. 5. I have perused the impugned order. The Sessions Judge has given cogent reason for allowing the application of the complainant. The Sessions Court has also taken into consideration the material which was brought on record by the Complainant and, therefore, after examining the said material, the Sessions Court came to the conclusion that the Petitioner was a signatory of the said cheque and has also taken part in the transaction. 6. Hence, no case is made out for interfering with the impugned order passed by the Sessions Court. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. (V.M. KANADE J.)