1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1812 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NOS.1813/2009 & 1814/2009 Girdhari Lal Lath : Applicant V/s. M/s.Llyods Finance Ltd. : Respondent ... Mr.Harshad Bhadbhade for the applicant. Ms Seema Patil i/b. Parab & Associates for the respondent. Ms R.V.Newton, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. ... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : JANUARY 11, 2010. P.C.: Rule, returnable forthwith. Ms Patil for the respondent and Ms Newton, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State, waive service. Heard by consent. 2. In all these matters, it appears that during the course of trial in complaints for alleged offences punishable under section 138 read with 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the accused deposited 2 certain amount in Court without prejudice to his rights and contentions. An application was made by the original complainant for withdrawal of these moneys which application has been allowed and that is how these applications challenging the said order. 3. On the last occasion and even today, I inquired of the learned Advocate appearing for the complainant as to under what provisions the learned Magistrate has exercised jurisdiction to permit withdrawal of moneys deposited in Court, pending trial. The learned Advocate found it difficult to pin-point any particular provisions of the Cr.P.C. or from the Negotiable Instruments Act. These are matters where cheques are allegedly dishonoured on presentation and, therefore, statutory notices have been given which were not complied with. That led to filing of complaints in the competent Court. If the complainant complains and to show his bona fides if the other side has deposited certain moneys, then, surely without anything more, the learned Magistrate could not have permitted the withdrawal of the same by the complainant. The complaints are yet to be tried. The complainant will have to prove his case set out in the complaints. All allegations have to be substantiated by leading oral and documentary evidence. In such circumstances, the learned Magistrate was in clear error in permitting withdrawal of the moneys by the complainant. No reasons have been assigned as to why such an unusual 3 step was taken by the learned Magistrate. 4. In these circumstances, rule in each of these matters is made absolute and the orders under challenge are quashed and set aside. The complaints shall proceed on their own merits, in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the order made on the subject applications. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)