vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.340 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.340 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.340 OF 2007 Harmeet Vijay Kumar Dudhani ... Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents Mr.Nitin Jamdar for Petitioner Mr.D.P. Adsule for Respondent State Mr.A.P. Kulkarni for Respondent No.2 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. MHATRE, J. MHATRE, J. DATED: JUNE 5, 2008 JUNE 5, 2008 JUNE 5, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The petitioner has filed the present petition against the order passed by the JMFC, Pune on 7.6.2006 which has been confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge 3, Pune on 12.12.2006. The JMFC, Pune has not issued process pursuant to the complaint filed by the petitioner against Respondent No.2. A report under section 202 of the Cr.P.C. was called for. The JMFC has perused the same and has found that the dispute between the complainant and the accused in respect of the goods returned in a damaged condition has already been settled between the parties. In this view of the matter, the JMFC has also held that the complainant has acted in furtherance of the settlement and that the Respondent No.2 has been wrongly implicated in the case of dishonour of a cheque. : 2 : 2. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Suprme Court in the case of Chandra Deo Singh v/s. Prokash Chandra Bose alias Chabi Bose & anr., AIR 1963 SC 1430 AIR 1963 SC 1430 AIR 1963 SC 1430 wherein the Supreme Court has held that the object of an enquiry under subsection (1) of section 202 is to ascertain the truth or falsehood of the complaint. The Magistrate is required to only examine a complainant and the statement on oath made before him at the instance of the comlainant. The Magistrate while issuing process is not required to consider whether there are sufficient ground for conviction of the accused, but whether there is a sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 3. Two Courts below have found that there are insufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused in view of the fact that the dispute between the petitioner and Respondent NO.2 in respect of the damaged goods was already settled. Merely because the accused has filed a case under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in respect of an amount which was in excess of the agreement, it would not necessarily mean that there was an intention to cheat the pettiioner for which process would have to be issued. Petition rejected.