1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Cr. Appln. No. 4473/2008 Dilip Bajranglal Agrawal Vs. M/s. Omprakash Shankarlal and others. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's order Judge's orders and Registrar's order ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Coram : A.P. Lavande,J. Dated : 13th April, 2009. Heard Mr. Shingane, learned counsel for the applicant. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant who is original complainant in Summary Criminal Case No.268/2007 pending before the J.M.F.C. Achalpur assails the order dated 25.11.2008 passed by the Sessions Judge, Achalpur in Criminal Revision Application No.62/2008 by which the Sessions Judge has discharged respondent no.4 who is accused no.4 in the said case. According to learned counsel, the reasons given by the Sessions Court are absolutely untenable in law and the application for discharge filed by respondent no.4 was not maintainable. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and having perused the order, I am of the considered opinion that no interference is called for with the impugned order in exercise of jurisdiction 2 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No doubt, the application filed by respondent no.4 for discharge was not maintainable in view of decision of the Apex Court in Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal :AIR 2004 SC 4674 but the fact remains that the complaint filed for dishonoring of two cheques in the sums of Rs. 1,02,000/- and Rs. 98,000/- against respondents 2, 3 and and respondent no.2 was neither signatory to the cheques nor partner of respondent no.1-Firm. This being the position, the proceedings initiated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against respondent no.2 are clearly not maintainable. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. It is not necessary for me to go into the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. Needless to mention that learned Magistrate shall decide the complaint filed against respondent nos. 1 to 3 on its own merits in accordance with law. Criminal Application is rejected, subject to the observation made above. JUDGE Ambulkar.