IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1601 OF 2004 Naresh Thakurdas Wadwani ... Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra & ors. ... Respondents ... Mr. Anil Subramaniam, for the Petitioner. Mr. K.V. Saste, A.P.P., for the State. ... CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. 22nd December 2004 P.C.: . Only two points have been urged before this Court for quashing of the criminal case filed against the present Petitioner. According to the Petitioner, the cheque in question was issued as security in terms of the obligation under the agreement of Sole Selling Agency executed between the parties. Assuming that the cheque was issued towards security under the agreement, as referred to by the Petitioner, the fact whether the security amount has been invoked because of the circumstances favourable to the complainant; and whether those circumstances would permit the Court to take the view that it was towards legally enforceable liability is a matter for trial. That cannot be the basis to quash the criminal action. . The second contention raised is that the cheque in question was issued after the limitation period of three years was over. Even this question being mixed question of fact and law will have to be tried and answered only after the parties have let in evidence in respect of their respective case. Reliance was placed on the decision of our High Court reported in 2000 (5) Bom.C.R. 9 in the case of Smt. Ashwini Satish Bhat v. Shri Jeevan Divakar Lolien kar and another to contend that if the cheque is issued after the period of limitation, then it is not legally enforceable debt or liability. As mentioned earlier, that aspect will have to be decided at the trial and cannot be the basis to quash the criminal action. Hence, dismissed. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.)