1 APL 381.11.sxw JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 381 OF 2011 Mr. Udaysing Pratakrao Chavan. ... Applicant. V/s. Mr. Digambar Mahadev Raut. ... Respondent. Mr. Datta Mane for the Applicant. Mrs. Preeti Walimbe for Respondent 1. Mr. Rajesh More, APP for the State. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 26th AUGUST 2011. P.C. :- Heard finally. 2. The prosecution in terms of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1882, against the Petitioner for dishonour of a cheque of Rs.70,00,000/- is question. 3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits the cheque was given as a security as there was a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in respect of purchase of property owned by the Respondent, which is supported by such MOU dated 17th May 2010. Another feature that has been highlighted is after issuance of the cheque for Rs.70,00,000/-, payments, one of Rs.5,00,000/- dated 18.6.2010, another of Rs.3,00,000/- dated 28.7.2010 and receipt of payment of Rs. 2 APL 381.11.sxw 2,00,000/- are made. Total payment, according to the Petitioner, is Rs.10,00,000/-. 4. The learned Counsel submits, these payments will not allow the Respondent to present the cheque as it was not the liability legally payable on the date of presentation of the cheque. 5. Learned Counsel also submits that these aspects are already dealt with while giving reply to the Respondent's notice dated 9.9.2010, by reply dated 11th October 2010. 6. Having gone through the receipts, reply and the MOU referred above, I find that these aspects cannot be gone into in terms of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings. This is more so, the very existence of MOU is doubted by the Respondent by filing FIR No.247 dated 1st June 2011 as to its genuineness. This Court is not expected to travel to the arena of worth of the FIR or genuineness of the MOU referred earlier. 7. In the situation, the learned Judge seized with the matter being ordain to decide all these features will naturally entertain the same. Exercise of power in terms of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is not practically possible. 8. The Petition lacks merit. Dismissed. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.) 3 APL 381.11.sxw