1 Cri.A.2608/10 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2608 OF 2010 Sagar Sunder Basavraj .. Applicant V/s Mrs. Ragini P. Desai & Anr. .. Respondents Miss Malika Ingale applicant. Mr. H.J. Dedhia, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : N.D. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 15TH OCTOBER 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard Miss Ingale, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Dedhia, learned A.G.P. for the State. The respondent no.1 – complainant is present in person. 2. By consent, heard finally at the stage of admission. 3. The present criminal application is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for quashing the complaint bearing no. 4302768/SS/2008 filed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 read with section 142 as amended by Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instruments Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988 (66 of 2 Cri.A.2608/10 1988). The aforesaid complaint came to be filed by the respondent no.1 against the present applicant as accused no.2 and his brother Suraj. 4. Upon verification of the complaint dated 20th September 2008, pursuant to which summonses were issued, the accused nos.1 and 2 appeared before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 43rd Court, Mumbai. Both of them pleaded not guilty when the particulars of the complaint were explained to them. 5. Being aggrieved by the issuance of process and the trial as directed by Magistrate’s Court, the present applicant – accused no.2 filed the present application on the ground that there are no specific averments made by the complainant holding him responsible for either issuance of the bounced cheque or its dishonour. Admittedly, the cheque of Rs.1,50,000/- was signed by the applicant’s brother Suraj who is accused no.1 and according to the applicant he is not responsible for the alleged non-payment of amount under the cheque. It is also submitted that after issuance of the process, there is no other remedy available to the applicant except to challenge the same under section 482 of the Cr. P.C. 3 Cri.A.2608/10 6. I have gone through the averments in the application and also the relevant averments in the complaint, xerox copy of which is filed on record. Xerox copy of the bounced cheque is also placed on record. It is thus seen that the present case is based on dishonour of the cheque of Rs.1,50,000/- allegedly issued by accused no.1 Suraj. Merely because both the accused are brothers and are doing the business from the same place and have common interest in the business does not make them jointly liable on account of the bouncing of cheque. There is no case made out for the alleged constructive liability or joint liability under section 138 or 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is also pointed out that the present applicant is a brother of accused no.1 who is son in law of the complainant and as such he would not be responsible and answerable for the alleged dishonour of the cheque. The submissions are accepted. 7. In view of the above, the petition is allowed in terms of prayer (i) and (ii). The criminal complaint bearing no. 4302768/SS/2008 shall now proceed only against the accused no.1. Petition is accordingly disposed of (N.D. DESHPANDE, J.)