wp525&526-10.sxw jpc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 525 OF 2010 Ashish Sharad Namani .. Petitioner Versus Vishwanath B. Goenka and another .. Respondents WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 526 OF 2010 Ashish Sharad Namani .. Petitioner Versus Vikas Vishwanath B. Goenka and another .. Respondents Mr. S.V. Marwadi i/by Mr.Vinayak V. Katti for the petitioner in both the petitions Ms. U. V. Kejriwal, APP for the State in both the petitions CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATE : 21st April, 2011. P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner who seeks to quash the proceedings in criminal cases, being SCC Nos. 2047/1997 and 2048/1997 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhiwandi Dist. Thane under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Respondent No.1 is a original complainant in both the proceedings. He filed complainants under section 138 of the N.I. Act against M/s Keshavdev Madanlal Nemani through Mr. Ashish Sharad Nemani, who had issued the disputed cheques. The 1 wp525&526-10.sxw learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Mr. Ashish Sharad Nemani is not the proprietor and the complaint could have been filed only against the proprietor and not against the person who was merely a authorised signatory. It is not disputed that both the cheques were signed by the present petitioner. Above his signatute the words "for Keshavdev Madanlal Nemani" and below his signature the words " Authorised signatory/Proprietor" are printed on the cheques. The printed cheques must have issued by the Bank. It is for the concerned person issuing cheques to strike out the irrelevant words indicating whether he is Proprietor or merely an authorised signatory. Cheques in question did not give such clear indication. M/s Keshavdev Madanlal Nemani appears to be assumed the name of the proprietorship concern. It is for the petitioner to show that he was not the proprietor and was merely an authorised signatory, particularly when in the complaint it is clearly mentioned that the concern belongs to the Petitioner i.e. accused. 3. In the above circumstances, the questions of facts cannot be decided at this stage. That can be decided by the trial Court. Therefore, both the petitions stand dismissed. ( J.H. BHATIA, J. ) 2