:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2708 OF 2004 ALONG WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.83 OF 2005 Mr. Bharat Devji Ruparel and anr. ...Petitioner. V/s State of Maharashtra and another ...Respondents. --- Mr. B. Joseph i/b M/s Sanjay Udeshi & Co. for the petitioner. Mr. Harshad Bhadbhade for respondent No.2. Mr. A.S. Shitole, APP for the State. --- CORAM: V.M.KANADE,J. DATE: 27th April, 2005 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. Petitioners are challenging the order of issuance of process passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate on a complaint filed by respondent No.2 under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that in the entire body of the complaint, there is no averment to the effect that Ruparel Finance Pvt. Ltd. has committed an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable :2: Instruments Act. It is submitted that the petitioners did not play any role in the alleged transaction. It is further submitted that the complaint has been filed by the power of attorney holder of the complainant and, after the death of the complainant, the power of attorney executed by Smt. Damayanti Chatrabhuj Somaiya came to an end and, therefore, the power of attorney holder had no right to prosecute the petitioners. In support of the said submissions, the learned counsel relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of K.P.G. Nair Vs. M/s. Jindal Menthol India Ltd. reported in 2001 ALL MR 2001 ALL MR 2001 ALL MR (Cri) (Cri) (Cri) 1206 1206 1206, Katta Sujatha (Smt) Vs. Fertilizers & Chemicals Travancore Ltd. reported in (2002) 7 SCC (2002) 7 SCC (2002) 7 SCC 655 655 655, D.Chandra Reddy Vs. Gowrisetty Prabhakar Rao & Anr. reported in 1999 ALL MR (Cri) Journal 97 1999 ALL MR (Cri) Journal 97 1999 ALL MR (Cri) Journal 97 and Monaben Ketanbhai Shah and Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in JT 2004(6) 309 JT 2004(6) 309 JT 2004(6) 309. 4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 vehemently opposed the said submissions. He submitted that the application for recall of process is rejected by the learned Magistrate and the said order was confirmed by the Sessions Court. He submitted that, thereafter, plea had been recorded. He relied on the judgement of the :3: Supreme Court in the case of Subramanium Sethuraman vs. State of Maharashtra and another reported in AIR AIR AIR 2004 2004 2004 SC 4711 SC 4711 SC 4711 in which the Supreme Court has held that once the plea is recorded, High Court should not entertain the application for quashing the process. 5. I have perused the copy of the complaint. From the complaint, it can be seen that in para 4 a specific averment is made that the accused had admitted in writing dated 12/7/1999 that they had received the amount which was paid by the complainant and, thereafter, the cheque which was given by the accused was deposited in the bank which was returned with an endorsement "fund insufficient". After that, a demand notice was sent to all the accused which was duly received by all of them and the acknowledgement card was duly signed by all the accused. The complainant has annexed postal acknowledgement card to the complaint. In my view, therefore, submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that there are no averments in the complaint, cannot be accepted. The ratio of the judgments on which the reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The Sessions Court has confirmed the order of issuance of process by the :4: Magistrate by passing a reasoned order. Admittedly, plea has been record and, thereafter, evidence of the complainant also has been recorded. Thus, there is no reason to interfere with the order of issuance of process by the Magistrate. 6. Accordingly, both the above Criminal Writ Petitions are dismissed. Criminal Case pending in the trial court is expedited. V.M. KANADE, J.