1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1937 OF 2008 Govind Bhau Patil Petitioner versus Sau.Mangala Ananda Khude and others Respondents Vinod P. Pandey i/by Shrishailya S. Deshmukh for petitioner. Suresh Bhosale for respondent no.1. Y.S.Shinde, APP for State. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 24th June 2009 PC :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner who is the original complainant. The petitioner filed a private complaint alleging commission of an offence against the first respondent under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the petitioner is that considering the friendly relationship between the families of the petitioner and the first respondent, the petitioner advanced loan of Rs.1.30 lakhs to the first respondent in May 2004. The first respondent had promised to repay the loan by May 2005. A writing was executed by the first respondent on 5th December 2005 by which the first respondent agreed to return the amount by the end of the year 2006. On 27th December 2006 a cheque in the sum of Rs. 1.30 lakhs was issued by the first respondent to the petitioner. On 24th 2 January 2007 when the said cheque was deposited for encashment it was returned on the basis of a circular issued by the clearing house that the operations of the bank on which the said cheque was drawn have been stopped. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that with the knowledge that the said cheque will not be encashed, the first respondent issued the said cheque which was deposited one month thereafter and therefore there was an intention on the part of the first respondent to cheat the petitioner. 2. The learned Magistrate issued process for the offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate observed that though the dispute was of civil nature, the contents of the complaint and verification were sufficient to pass the order. The Sessions Court has interfered with the said order and has dismissed the complaint. The Sessions Judge held that no ingredients of offence under section 420 of the Penal Code have been made out. 3. Even going by the case of the petitioner, the cheque in dispute was issued on 27th December 2006 by the first respondent and instructions were issued by the clearing house on 28th December 2008 for stopping the transactions of the bank on which the said cheque was drawn. Therefore, the first respondent could not have knowledge of this instruction on 27th December 2006. It is not the assertion made in the complaint that any time after 27th December 2006 till 24th January 2007 when the cheque was deposited, the first respondent was made aware of 3 the circular dated 27th December 2008. 4. Hence, no fault can be found with the order of the Sessions Court which records a finding that the ingredients of the offence under section 420 of the Penal Code have not been made out. 5. Hence, the writ petition is rejected. It is, however, made clear that the observations made in this order are for limited purpose for considering the question whether a case is made out for offence punishable under section 420 of the Penal Code and the observations shall not bind the parties in any other proceedings. (A.S.OKA, J.)