1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 515 OF 2010 Smt. Bharati Kiran Somchand Khona ........Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra & anr........Respondent. Mr. Ghansham Upadyaya adv. for the Petitioner. Mr. A.S.Shitole APP for State CORAM: B. R. GAVAI, J. DATED : 18th February, 2010. P.C.: 1. The applicant challenges the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Bombay whereby issuing process against accused under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments act. 2. Shri Upadyay the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the applicant is a partner of M/s. Super Vegetable Co. He submits that there are no averments which are required under sec. 141 of N.I. Act. The entire transaction took place between the husband of the petitioner and the complainant and the petitioner was not a party to it. 3. In so far as the first contention regarding requirement of section 141 is concerned, the perusal of paragraph 2 would reveal that necessary averments to answer the requirement of section 141 2 are very much there in the complaint. In so far as the rest of the contention regarding the petitioner not being a party to the transaction and the transaction being between the petitioner’s husband and the complainant are concerned, it is to be noted that at the stage of issuance of process, the learned Magistrate has come to a prima facie opinion that the ingredients to constitute an offence under sec. 138 of N.I.Act would be dishonour of a cheque, a notice of demand of the amount under the cheque and non- compliance of the notice. Upon perusal of the complaint, it cannot be said that these ingredients are absent in the complaint. In that view of the matter no perversity is noticed in the approach of the learned Magistrate in issuance of process. The petition is without any merit and as such petition is dismissed. (B.R. Gavai, J.)