1 crapn2395.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2395 OF 2010 Bhalla Automobiles, Through Prop. Rajan Roshanlal Bhalla, Age: 58 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Sangamner Road,Shrirampur, Tq. Shrirampur, Dist.Ahmednagar. ...APPLICANT VERSUS Rajesh s/o Rambhau Maurya, Age: 30 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Northern Branch, Sut Girni Road, Near Jawedbhai Bungalow, Shrirampur, Tq. Shrirampur Dist.Ahmednagar. ...RESPONDENT ... Mr. B.V. Wagh, Advocate for applicant. Mr. R.M. Pardeshi, Advocate for respondent. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 8TH FEBRUARY, 2011 PER COURT : . Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The learned Counsel for the applicant 2 crapn2395.10 submits that it is not in dispute that the cheque which was presented in the bank, was signed by the respondent. The dispute is that who has purchased the tyres of the truck from the complainant. According to the complainant, the present respondent and his father are members of the joint family and therefore, cheque is issued to the complainant and if it is signed by respondent, he is responsible for the same. 3. According to learned Counsel for the respondent, the applicant has approached the Court initially stating in the complaint that the respondent has purchased tyres from the complainant. However, subsequently he changed his stand from time to time and the trial Court has noted all the said facts. Learned Counsel further invited my attention to Para-31 of the impugned judgment and submitted that the trial Court observed in Para-31 that the complainant has admitted that all the bills submitted on record are in the name of father of the respondent. It 3 crapn2395.10 is further submitted that no any bill is submitted by the complainant which is signed by the respondent herein. Learned Counsel further invited my attention to Para-32 of the impugned judgment and submitted that the trial Court has observed in the said Paragraph that if there is existence of joint family, the complainant should have approached the Court with the averments that the cheque issued by the respondent is of joint account of father of the respondent and respondent. However, such averments are missing in the complaint. Learned Counsel further invited my attention to the reported judgment in the case of Kishore Shankar Singapurkar vs. State of Maharashtra and another reported in 2003 All M.R. (Criminal) 1867 and more particularly Para-11. Relying on the said Paragraph, learned Counsel submits that if the relevant facts and narrations are missing in the original complaint and the complainant goes on improving his case during the course of hearing in that case, trial Court is right in drawing inference against the applicant 4 crapn2395.10 and acquitting the respondent. Therefore, he submits that the application seeking leave to appeal against the respondent may be rejected. 4. Upon hearing learned Counsel for the applicant and learned Counsel for the respondent and upon perusal of Para-31 and 32 of the impugned judgment and also concluding Paragraph of the said judgment of the trial Court, it does appear that initially complaint lacks material particulars. It does not disclose the fact that there was joint account of father of respondent and respondent himself. It is admitted position that all bills which were placed on record were in the name of father of respondent. It was possible for the complainant at the time of filing complaint to take all the grounds/averments available to him. Once the complaint was filed, it is not permissible to go on changing stand and take different stand at different times. Therefore, taking over all view of the matter, in my opinion, trial Court was justified in giving benefit of 5 crapn2395.10 doubt to the respondent. Therefore, no interference is warranted in the impugned judgment and order. However, it will be open for the complainant to file complaint against the father of respondent and rejection of this application would not come in the way of the applicant in filing separate complaint against father of the respondent herein. 5. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any substance in the application. Hence the application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 15-04-2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shrirampur District Ahmednagar in Criminal Case No. 199 of 2008, is rejected. 6. Registry is directed to send Record and Proceedings back to the concerned Court, forthwith. [ S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/feb11/crapn2395.10