* 1 * W.P. 2180.2010 6.01.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2180 OF 2010 M/s. Curls & Curves India Ltd & Ors. .......Petitioners V/S. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .........Respondents * * * * * * Mr. A.M. Saraogi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. P.S. Hingorani, APP for State-respondent no.1. Mr. Maravoor Wamorkar, Advocate for respondent no.2. Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 6 January, 2011. P.C. : 1. This application is filed for quashing of Criminal Case No. 36/S/2003 filed by respondent no.2 under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act and pending in the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 12th Court, Bandra, Mumbai. It has been filed at a stage where respondent no.2 has already examined one witness and the case is posted for further evidence. * 2 * W.P. 2180.2010 6.01.2011 2. Petitioner no.1 is accused no.1 who issued the cheque in question in the sum of Rs.25,00,000/- on 15th September, 2002. Petitioners no.2 to 5 are its Directors. The cheque when presented for payment on 18th December, 2002 was dishonoured as the Account on which it was drawn was closed. Respondent no.2 had sent demand notice dated 27th December, 2002 calling upon the petitioners to pay the sum of Rs.25,00,000/- within 15 days from the receipt of notice. Undisputedly, the notice was received by the petitioners and no payment has been made as demanded therein. 3. Mr. Saraogi, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the cross-examination of the witness of respondent no.2 is sufficient to show that the prosecution launched by respondent no.2 is false and premature. He submits that during the cross- examination, the witness was confronted with receipt dated 21st September, 2001 purported to have been executed by Harshad Rana, Director of respondent no.2. The contents of the receipt read as follows :- “ RECEIPT Received with Thanks a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rs Twenty * 3 * W.P. 2180.2010 6.01.2011 Lacs only) from Curls & Curves (I) Ltd vide ch.no. 377476 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Masjid Moth, New Delhi against security. Further the cheque will not be presented unless & until negotiated and informed to Curls & Curves (I) Ltd in writing in advance. FOR VAPRA PRODUCTS PVT.LTD DIRECTOR DATED : 21.09.2001” 4. He submits that respondent no.2 could not have presented the cheque for payment unless and until it was negotiated and informed to petitioner no.1 in writing in advance. He submits, that the witness of respondent no.2 has admitted the receipt in his evidence. The learned counsel for respondent no.2, submits that, it is the case of respondent no.2, that the receipt shown to the witness is a forged and fabricated receipt. He points out that in the cross-examination, the witness of respondent no.2 has not admitted genuineness of the receipt, but, has merely stated that the signature appearing thereon is of Harshad Rana. It appears that it is the case of respondent no. 2 that the receipt dated 21st September, 2001 has been forged by the * 4 * W.P. 2180.2010 6.01.2011 petitioners by cutting the bottom portion of some document and using it for the purpose of preparing the receipt. He submits that the proper witness to depose these facts would be Harshad Rana who is supposed to have issued the receipt and this witness would be examined during the trial of the proceedings. Considering these facts and also considering the position of the matter where the trial has already commenced, there can be no question of quashing of the proceedings at this stage on the grounds alleged. 5. It has next been submitted tentatively by Mr. Saraogi, that petitioners no.2 to 5 who are the Directors of petitioner no.1, have been unnecessarily roped into the criminal proceedings and there are no proper averments indicating their involvement in the matter. An application for discharge on this ground has been delayed, which delay has not been explained. The trial in the matter has already started. In the circumstance, the petition is dismissed. [Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J]