1 827.11 CWP FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 827 OF 2011 (KrishnaS/o Vithhal Varangule V. Santosh S/o Raokh Anbhule ) Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Shri H.V. Tungar, Advocate for petitioner Shri G.R. Ingole, APP for respondent /State ..... CORAM : U.D. SALVI, J. DATED : 30 th November, 2011. 1. Heard. Perused petition. 2. This Petition has been moved for quashing of the order of issuance of process passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Karjat, District Ahmednagar in S.T.C.C. No. 430/2010 lodged under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The grounds for quashing the process are as under : i] Discrepancy between the complaint and the verification statement regarding the description of the bank on which the cheque was drawn. 2 827.11 CWP ii] The cheque was returned for variation in the drawers signature and as such the bank had no business to say any thing about the insufficiency of funds in the concerned account. 3. It is true that in the complaint the cheque is described at para No. 4 of the complaint as cheque No. 136397, dated 20-07-2009 drawn on account No. 628 with the Beed District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Beed, Ashti Branch, and in the verification statement it is referred to as cheque No. 136937 drawn on Beed Central Co-operative Ltd., Beed, Ashti Branch. Order of issuing the process reveals that learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Karjat, District Ahmednagar did go through the complaint, verification statement as well as accompanying documents. Petition does not say any thing as to what were the accompanying documents. 4. The cheque in question is described as cheque No. 136937 drawn on the Beed Central Co-operative Ltd., Beed, Account No. 628 with Ashti branch in the notice of demand. Essentially. the complaint speaks about the dishonor of the cheque due to insufficiency of funds. In absence of the reference to the documents 3 827.11 CWP placed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Karjat by the complainant in the petition, it can not be said that the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Karjat was misled into issuing a process without their being sufficient grounds. 5. No interference is, therefore, warranted. Criminal Writ Petition No. 827/2011 stand dismissed. ( U.D. SALVI, J. ) SDM*