1 Cri.Appln.No.111/2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.111 OF 2009 Yuvraj s/o Bapurao Suryatal Age:25 Yrs., occu. Business, r/o Purna, Tq. Purna, District Parbhani. - APPLICANT (orig.Respondent) VERSUS Shaikh Musa s/o Shaikh Abdulla, Age: 58 Yrs., occu. Service, R/o Shastri Nagar, Purna, Tq.Purna, District Parbhani. - RESPONDENT (orig.Petitioner) ***** Mr.SS Shete, Advocate for Applicant; Mr.MM Nerlikar, Adv. for Respondent. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 13th June, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1) Heard both sides extensively. 2) The respondent – Shaikh Musa filed a 2 Cri.Appln.No.111/2009 complaint before learned JMFC, Purna, alleging infraction of Sections 420, 463, 464, 468, 469, 470, 471, 474 of IPC, as signed blank cheque book with certain leaves thereof was misplaced and allegedly misused by the applicant – Yuvraj. 3) The learned JMFC directed the complainant – Shaikh Musa to adduce evidence before issuing process which was complied. The learned JMFC was not satisfied with the evidence of four witnesses and did not issue process against the accused – Yuvraj. 4) The order was carried by the respondent/original complainant in Criminal Revision No.65/2008 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Parbhani and the learned Sessions Judge, by the impugned order dated 17th December, 2008, allowed the revision and directed issuance of process against the accused for the offence under Sections 464, 463, 471 r/w 465 of IPC. 5) The greivance of the applicnat/accused is, issuance of the process by the revisional court by itself would generate an impression of cause against the applicant/accsued. The observations in the order passed in revision, according to Mr.Shete, would be influencing the learned JMFC. 3 Cri.Appln.No.111/2009 6) Having visited the order of learned JMFC and of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani, I find the learned JMFC basically exceeded his jurisdiction while entertaining the matter by perusal of the record, which was not expected of him. The learned JMFC has also perused the record of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act initiated by the applicant/accused, vide RCC No.37/2008. This exercise was not expected to be done. 7) Having read the order carefully, I find the respondent/complainant alleged that the above referred signed cheque book was lost. Consequently, before it could be used, he approached the Bank and informed on 19.10.2007 to this effect and the payment was stopped. The accused/applicant did not present the said cheque before 19.10.2007 and consequently, the contention in the proceedings that the cheque was bounced/dishonoured due to insufficient funds apparently is incorrect. The complainant claimed that the accused/applicant has forged the cheque and the learned Sessions Judge, prima facie, found material to issue process in terms of the sections referred herein above. Considering these aspects, I do not see any illegality on the part of the revisional court in directions of issuance of process against the 4 Cri.Appln.No.111/2009 accused/applicant. The observations made by the learned revisional court shall not be treated as final merit in the matter. The learned JMFC shall proceed, based on the evidence that would be adduced before him. 8) Criminal Application lacks merit, dismissed. Rule discharged. sd/- ( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE bdv/ Authenticated copy (BD VADNERE,PS)