WP.2355-10 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 2355 OF 2010 Vikram Rajeev Ramthirth ...Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents *** Mr. Ramprakash Pandey, for the Petitioner. Mr. P. A. Pol, APP for the Respondent-State. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : AUGUST 24, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is challenging the order of issuance of process passed by the learned Magistrate on a complaint filed by respondent No.2 under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Respondent No.2 had booked a flat with the petitioner who is a partner of M/s. Aakaar Construction and had paid an amount of Rs. 9 lacs by cheques. Thereafter the Developer had agreed to refund all the money with good will totaling to Rs.16,5,000/- to the complainant and WP.2355-10 - 2 - also gave an undertaking on a non-judicial stamp of Rs.100/-, which was duly signed by accused No.1. Two cheques were given for Rs.2,50,000/- each in favour of the complainant. However, these cheques when deposited in the bank for clearance, were dishonoured. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the petitioner had resigned from the partnership, he is not responsible for the dishonour of cheques. He submitted that accused No.1 has absconded. He further submitted that there is no averment in the plaint as to how the petitioner could be held liable under S. 141 of the N. I. Act in respect of the alleged dishonour of the cheques. It is submitted said cheques were issued by accused No.1 in his personal capacity from his personal savings account. It is further submitted that the said two cheques were neither issued from the account of the partnership firm nor were they issued from the account of the petitioner, and therefore, the provisions of S. 141 of the Act are not attracted. He invited my attention to the reply given by the petitioner to the demand notice issued by the complainant. 3. It is not possible to accept this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. So far as issue of retirement of petitioner from the partnership is concerned, the said issue will have to be considered after both the party lead evidence in the trial Court. Now, at this stage it WP.2355-10 - 3 - will not be possible to decide this aspect. Secondly, so far as averment in the complaint are concerned, perusal of the complaint clearly disclose that specific averment has been made in the complaint, alleging that the petitioner herein is also one of the partners of the said firm and as such there is adequate compliance of the provisions of Sec. 141 of the N.I. Act. In any case, the question regarding liability of the petitioner will have to be decided at the final hearing of the complaint. Hence, at this stage, it is not possible to interfere with the impugned order of issuance of process passed by the learned Magistrate. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed. [ V. M. KANADE J.]