•^•^^ '<& W9^ | ' ;"""11 S , '—--y S' , , <•. ^a 1.,. .;,,i'KI=:~;KSi». y ;i^?T^ HI©HCOWT OF CHHATTISe^H AT Nb^SPUR Cr.M.P. No. 447 fff SB : Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J. Petitioners 1. Raghupnt Rao Bhosle, -S/o t.<rte Shri Shankar Rao Bhosie. aged about 63 years, R/o Sheetiapara, Simga, Mstt. Raipur (C.6.) 2. Dhiraj Bhoste, S/o Sri Rughupat ftao Bhosie, aged about 35 years, R/o Sheetlapara, Simgn, Oistt. Raipur (C.6.) Va. 1. Sanjay Jnin S/o Late Nemichtmd Jain, Proprietor Manju Stores Shnga, Bhosle Complex, Main Road, Simgu, Wstt. Rnijair 2. Niraj Bhoste, S/o Shri Rt^huput' Rno Bhosie, aged about 32 years, ft/o Sheetlapora, Simga, Oistt-. Roipur (C.6-) (PETrTEON UNDER SECTION 482 OF TH6 CO&E OF C^EMENAL PROCEbURE, 1973) Present:- Mr. P.R. Pat-onkar, cw-inset for the- petitioner. ORAL OR&Bl (Passed on 191*1 September, 2008) This petftion is directed against the order dated 24.4.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Simga, jn Crimtnal Complaint Cttse No. 146/2008 whereby the !eamed Judicic! Mcgistrcte Rrst Class hcs token cognSzance against the appltca"ts and ano+her co-accused l.e. resppndent No. 2 for commission of offence punishobte under'Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. The order is challenged on the ground that- the petitioners are. not under an obligflEtion to pay or discharge nny Uability und®'-any instruments- They are not proprje-tor of any firm i.e. Shankar' Cycte Steres; therefore. they are not liabte for any liability. The trin! court- haswrflngly tesued 1+<e process against them despite th<rt yide order dct'ed 24-4.%X)8 the trlal cpur!' o — ^-" has specifically recorded ond proceeded against the Armvedak which meais Anavedak^o. 1 i.e. Neera.j Bhosle. 4. I have heard counsel for the- petitioners and perused the order impugned. copy of the complaint, copy of notice, eopy of r'ely of notice fited on behalf of th®petitioners <md copy of other documents. » 5. From perusal of the documents, it reveols thut the trial court hcs take.n cognizance on the basis of comptaint fiied against three persons including the present petitioners and issued process ogairwt'them. Process has been issued to all accused persons IncSuding the petftipners ond respondent No. 2, but it has been written in the order impugned t'htrt pjrocess be issue-d to Aniwede^, The tria! court has not mentioned the name of (ny Anadevak or respondent No. 2 and in absence of any further exptmutkn; ^nademk mKnt'wned 'm the order impugned includes ail -4'?»i/ed'a<r/accused»f the complaint including the petitioners. The respondent No. l/complunant has issue-d the notice to the accused persons in ncconlnnce with the provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act m which it has been specificalfy mentioned that the- petitioners and respondent No. 2 <n"e the proprietor of Shankar CycSe Store-s and they are having busine-ss retati«i with th® petitioners and respondent No. 2. Notice hos been r^lied by the petitioners, but they had not denied the allegat-ion of the notice thuf os to whether they ar®proprietor of Shankar Cycle Storesor not, but they hgve clett-ty re-plied that no reply is necessary. , . 6. On the basis of the moteria! availcbie m record, the triul court- has taken cognizonce. At this stoye especiatty In the liaW' of notice <md its rep!y of paras 1 ond 2, I do not find any ground for invoking inherent'jurisdiction. 7. Consequently, the petition is dismissed a* the stage of aAnidBion, B/- Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge