1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 4180/2008 Ancha Udyog & 2 Others ..vs.. Rajesh Nathulal Mundhada & another WITH Criminal Application No. 4177/2008 Ancha Udyog & 2 Others ..vs.. Rajesh Nathulal Mundhada & another -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Sarda, Advocate for the applicants. CORAM: R. C. CHAVAN, J. DATED : 7 th JANUARY, 2009 1. Heard. 2. These two applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are directed against the orders passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola rejecting the applicants' revision petitions in the context of the following facts. The applicants are the partners of a Firm which had traded with complainant's Firm. The applicant's-Firm was found to be liable to pay large sums of money towards transactions to the complainant. Upon demand being made, original accused no. 5, who was Manager of the applicant- Firm as well as another Firm of which the applicants are not 2 partners, issued seven cheques to the complainant. The cheques were dishonoured. Two complaints were filed, one in respect of five dishonoured cheques and another in respect of two dishonoured cheques. Process was issued against the applicants. Upon issuance of process, the applicants took exception to the order issuing process, contending that the cheques issued by accused no. 5 had nothing to do with the applicant's-Firm and order directing issuance of process ought to be quashed. It may be seen that accused no. 5, who issued the cheques, is husband of applicant no. 2 Durgadevi. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola rejected the revision application holding that the order directing issuance of process did not call for interference. The reasons given by learned Additional Sessions Judge show that the cheques were delivered with a covering letter to the complainant wherein it was specifically stated that the cheques were drawn on the account of accused no. 4 for liability of accused no. 1. The complaint also contains specific averments that 3 the present applicants are in charge and are responsible for the affairs of accused no. 1-Firm which owe liability to the complainant for which the cheques drawn. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants relied upon two Authorities. First is of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Bonthagorla Naga Lakshmi ..vs.. Yarasani Lingaiah & anr; 2006 ALL MR (Cri) JOURNAL 235 and another is of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Gulshan Kumar ..vs.. Dr. Alka Arora & another; 2007 (1) DCR 43. In the first judgment wife had prayed for discharge on account of the fact that the wife and husband both had borrowed a sum of Rs. 30,000/- for their business. The cheque was issued by the husband. In this context, the Court held that wife could be discharged. 4. In the second judgment, the person who was liable to pay money to the complainant had paid the sum to one Hardeep Singh Chawla. When the complainant demanded money, the said Hardeep Singh Chawla, gave cheque to the complainant, which was eventually dischonoured. It may be 4 seen that the facts are altogether different. In this case, it is specifically averred in the complaint that the liability is particularly of applicant no. 1, of which the applicant nos. 2 and 3 are the partners. It seems that applicant as well as other co-accused, one of whom is husband of applicant no. 2, want to cleverly avoid liability of all by extricating three applicants first, saying that they had not issued the cheuque and subsequently the remaining accused would try to extricate themselves saying that cheque was not issued for legally enforceable liability, since liability was that of present applicants. This is not the intendment in criminalising the act of dischonour of cheque. Therefore, learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be faulted for rejecting the revision. Whatsoever defence the applicants want to put up that may do at trial. The applications are, therefore, rejected. JUDGE kahale