1 Spb/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 299 OF 2010 Sanjay Sanghai ... Petitioner. (Org.Accused) Versus Global Trade Finance Ltd., & Ors. ... Respondents. --- Mr. A.P.Mundargi with Desai i/by Divya Shah Associates for the Petitioner. Mr. Yashpal Thakur i/by Paras Kuhad & Associate for Respondent No.1. Mrs. R.V. Newton, APP for the State. --- CORAM : B. R. GAVAI, J. DATED : 25th February, 2010. P.C. : 1. The petitioner challenges the order dated 30th of June, 2009 in Cri. Complaint No. 4274/SS of 2009, thereby process is issued against the petitioner. 2. It is the contention of the petitioner that there is no privity of contract between the petitioner and the respondent-complainant. It is submitted that there was an agreement between the complainant and the Global Hi-Tech Industries Limited. It is the contention of the petitioner that as per the agreement between accused and the Global 2 Hitech Industries Ltd., the accused were required to pay all the invoices directly to the complainant. It is submitted that the agreement between the petitioner and the Seanto Exports, the payment was to be made by the accused to M/s. Globale Hitech Industries Ltd., directly. It is further submitted that all the original invoices issued by the Global Hitech Industries Ltd., were returned to the said Seanto Exports and therefore, there is no question of any legal liability to make payment to the complainant. 3. The present petition is for quashing the criminal complaint and the order of issuance of process. At this stage, the court will have to consider only the allegations made in the complaint at its face value so as to find out as to whether the case against the accused for an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act has been made out or not. The necessary ingredients to constitute the offence will be the cheque issued by the accused to the complainant; presentation of the same by the complainant through its bankers, dishonour of the same, demand on notice by the complainant to the accused and non-payment of the amount by the complainant, in compliance of the notice to make the payment. Perusal of the compliant would reveal that these ingredients are available in the complaint. The question as to whether there is a legal liability or not would be required to be considered at the stage of the trial after 3 considering the evidence led on behalf of the parties. At this stage, it will not be permissible for this court to consider the documents supplied by the petitioner. 4. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference by this court. Hence, the petition is dismissed. (B.R.GAVAI, J.)