: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY SIDE JURISDICTION SIDE JURISDICTION SIDE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.475 OF 2007 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.475 OF 2007 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.475 OF 2007 WITH WITH WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.476 OF 2007 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.476 OF 2007 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.476 OF 2007 WITH WITH WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.477 OF 2007 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.477 OF 2007 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.477 OF 2007 WITH WITH WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.478 OF 2007 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.478 OF 2007 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.478 OF 2007 M/s.Ramona Kintex Private Ltd. & Anr. ...Petitioners. V/s. Maxwell Industries Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents. Shri T.D.Deshmukh, adv. for the Petitioners. Smt.S.V.Gajare, APP for the Respondent/State. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 12TH April, 2007. DATE : 12TH April, 2007. DATE : 12TH April, 2007. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr.Deshmukh the learned counsel for the Petitioners. Perused the relevant record. 2. The respondent no.1 is the original complainant. Petitioner no.1, which is private limited company, is accused no.1 and petitioner no.2, who is accused no.2, is a director of the petitioner no.1 company. The complainant/respondent in its complaints stated that the accused no.2, is the director of the accused no.1 company and is in-charge of day-to-day affairs of the complainant . It is also stated that the accused in part discharge of the liability towards the : 2 : complainant issued certain cheques. The cheques were submitted to the bank for encashment but they were dishonoured with remarks that "payment stopped by the drawer". Thereafter, statutory notice was issued by the complainant to the accused persons. In spite of service of notice, they did not make the payment and therefore, the complaints were filed by the complainant against the accused no.1 and 2. Accused persons filed revision applications before the Sessions Court challenging the issuance of process in the said matters but the revision applications came to be rejected. Therefore, they have preferred these writ petitions. 3. After perusal of the complaint, I find that prima-facie case is made out under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and there is no substance in these petitions. 4. Writ Petitions stand dismissed. (J.H.Bhatia,J.) (J.H.Bhatia,J.) (J.H.Bhatia,J.)