( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 330 OF 2010 Nijam Gafur Shaikh APPLICANT VERSUS Rajmohammad Nabab Patel RESPONDENT .... Mr. K.N. Lokhande, advocate for the applicant. Mr. A.S. Zarekar, advocate for the respondent. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 28th September, 2010] PER COURT : 1. By this application, the original complainant seeks leave to appeal under section 378 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code against judgement of acquittal rendered by the learned Magistrate in S.C.C. No. 618/2007 for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Judicial Magistrate acquitted the respondent for the offence on the ground that defence of the respondent was probable. 2. The applicant is son-in-law of the respondent. It appears prima facie that the applicant had borrowed loan from ( 2 ) Dwarkadas Mantri Nagari Sahakari Bank, Beed, Branch at Ahmednagar. The respondent was guarantor for the purpose of repayment. 3. The case of the applicant was that the respondent had borrowed amount from him at the relevant time and the cheque was issued for the repayment of said amount. It prima facie does not stand to reason that the respondent, who is old man and father-in-law of the applicant, was required to borrow such amount from the son-in-law. On the other hand, the impugned judgement reveals that the applicant admitted, during cross-examination that after he had received notice of demand (Exh-40) from the Bank, there was mutual settlement. It appears that the respondent issued the cheque in question towards part of the payment due to the Bank in order to satisfy the loan raised by the applicant. The trial Court held that defence of the respondent that the cheque was given towards payment of the loan amount under one-time settlement scheme is probabalized. It does not stand to reason, prima facie, that when the applicant himself was a borrower of the Bank, yet, was in a position to lend the amount to the respondent i.e. the father-in-law. In view of the mutual relationship between the parties, it is more probable that ( 3 ) the father-in-law tried to save the applicant from clutches of the Bank recovery and ultimately, the greedy applicant tried to extract more money from him. No substance in the application. Hence, the same is dismissed. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/criapln330-10