1 (cri, appln 364 of 2010 in 365 of 2010) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMNAL APPLICATION NO. 364 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 56 OF 2000 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 365 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 56 OF 2010 M/s. Malwa Proteins & Oils Ltd., and Anr. ...Applicants Vs. Sopariwala Exports and Anr. ...Respondents ****** Mr.Subodh Desai for Applicants Mr.Chandarana i/b. Mahernosh Humranwal for Respondent No.1 Mr.P.S. Hingarani -APP for the State ****** CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 24TH NOVEMBER, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicants and the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 2. For the reasons stated in the Application, the delay caused in filing the application is condoned. The 2 (cri, appln 364 of 2010 in 365 of 2010) Criminal application no.56 of 2000 is taken up for final hearing. 3. The Applicants are challenging the order of issuance of process passed by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate for an offence punishable under section 138 r/w. 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is submitted that the cheques which were given by the Applicants herein were towards collateral security and, as such, therefore, the offence under provisions of section 138 of N.I. Act is not attracted to the facts of the case. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Mundargi, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1 submitted that this issue is a disputed issue and the Trial Court will have to give a finding after both the sides lead evidence. 5. In my view, there is much substance in the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.1. It is not possible, therefore, to entertain this application for quashing the complaint. This Court cannot go into the question of correctness of 3 (cri, appln 364 of 2010 in 365 of 2010) the averments made in the complaint at this stage. The question, whether the cheques were given as collateral security or not will have to be decided by the Trial Court at the time of hearing. 6. Hence, Criminal application No. 56 of 2000 is disposed of. Hearing of the criminal case is expedited. The Applicant No.2 shall remain present in the Trial Court on 13th December, 2010. 7. I am informed that the Applicant no.2 has not been remained present in the Trial Court despite the non-bailable warrant. The Trial Court shall take appropriate steps including taking steps for proclamation under the provisions of Cr.P.C. if the Applicant No.2 does not remain present on 13th December, 2010. The Application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. The learned Magistrate is directed to decide this case expeditiously within a period of three months from today and if possible, to hear the case on day-to-day basis. (V.M. KANADE J.)