:1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.658 OF 2001 Mr. Anirudha W. Ghangrekar. ..Petitioner. Vs. Shree Sharda Co.op. Bank Ltd. and ors. ..Respondent. None for the Petitioner. Mr. S.G.Deshmuklh holding for A.V.Anturkar for the Respondent No.1. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 absent though served. CORAM : R.S. MOHITE, J. DATED : 09.4.2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. None for the petitioner. Heard Advocate for the Respondent No.1. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 though served absent. 2. This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner for quashing process under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The respondent No.2 is said to be the Chairman of the Respondent No.3 Shree Shetkari Sashakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. She is not specifically named as a party in the complaint though the complaint has been filed by the complainant against the Chairman and Secretary of the sugar factory who are shown as accused No.1 and the present petitioner is shown as accused No.2. On perusing the entire complaint, it is seen that it was the allegation in the complainant that the :2: present petitioner was engaged by the Sugar factory for dismantling, transportation and erection of sugar plant. The sugar factory opened an account in the name of accused No.2. and issued two cheques which were ultimately dishonoured. These cheques were issued by way of repayment of the loan standing in the name of accused No.2. These loans were taken by accused No.2 as stop gap arrangement at the request and behest of the sugar factory. Cheques were presented and dishonoured and returned back with the endorsement "referred to the drawer". The facts of this case indicates that the liability was of the bank and the cheques in question were also issued by the bank though they may have been put into account of the present petitioner. I have perused the cheques in question. I am shown cheques in question. They have been issued in favour of respondent No.1 A/c. Uni Erector Pvt. Ltd. They are not signed by the petitioner. In the circumstances, it appears that even the sugar factory challenged the issuance of process against them but this challenge was negatived upto the High Court. So far as petitioner is concerned there is no question of any offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This petition is therefore will have to be allowed. Petition is therefore, allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and the order issuing process against the present petitioner alone stands quashed. Trial may be conducted expeditiously only against the accused No.1 and should :3: be completed within a period of eight weeks from today. Petition stands disposed of. (R. S. MOHITE, J.)