- 1 - rng IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2666 OF 2008 Mr.Vijay Kumar .. Applicant vs 1. The State of Maharashtra & ors .. Respondents Mr.A.S.Chavan for Applicant Mr.K.K.Malphatak for Respondent nos. 2 to 4. Ms.S.V.Gajre APP for State CORAM: A.S.OKA, J DATED : 15th July, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant. The applicant is the complainant in a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The 2nd to 4th respondents were arraigned in the said complaint as accused nos. 3 to 5. Process was issued by the learned Magistrate. The said order was challenged by the 2nd to 4th respondents by filing a Revision Application before the Sessions Court. The Revision Application has been allowed and the order of process has been quashed and set aside. 2. The learned counsel for the applicant invited my attention to the averments made in the complaint. He pointed out that a specific role has been ascribed to accused nos. 3 to 5. He pointed out that there are - 2 - averments made in paragraph 1 of the complaint that the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was advanced by the applicant to the accused for expansion of the family business of the accused. He pointed out that there are averments made that all the accused are beneficiaries of the business and the accused are jointly and severally involved in the affairs of the business. He, therefore, submitted that in view of the decision of this court in the case of The Dadasaheb Rawal Coop Bank of Dondaicha Ltd vs Ramesh s/o Jawrilal Jain & ors 2008 All M.R.(Cri) 2528, a case was made out for issue of process against the accused nos. 3 to 5. He pointed out that this court in the said decision has held that Hindu Undivided Family being an association of persons is a company within the meaning of explanation (a) to section 141 of the said Act. He, therefore, submitted that the Sessions Court has committed an error. 3. I have considered the submissions. The decision of this Court in the case of The Dadasaheb Rawal Coop Bank Ltd (supra) holds that a joint family business of a Hindu Undivided family is covered by the term association of individuals used in the proviso (a) to section 141 of the said Act. The specific averment in the complaint is that the applicant is a beneficiary of M/s Manna Trade Lines which was the family business of the accused nos. 2 to 5. It is not even asserted in the complaint that the - 3 - said accused persons are hindu who constituted a Hindu Undivided Family. It is not the case made out in the complaint that M/s Manna Trade Lines is a joint family business. Unless Hindu Undivided family is in existence, there cannot be a a Joint family business. There is difference between a joint family business and a family business. In absence of all these material averments reliance placed on the aforesaid decision of this Court will not help the applicant. Secondly, I find that there are no material averments made in the complaint as required by sub-section 1 of section 141 of the said Act. It is pertinent to note that none of the accused nos. 3 to 5 are signatories to the alleged cheque. 4. Considering the aforesaid state of affairs, the learned Sessions Judge has set aside the order of issue of process. I find no fault with the impugned order and no case for interference is made out under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 5. Application is rejected. It is however made clear that no adjudication has been made on the merits of the complaint filed by the applicant in which process has been issued against accused nos. 1 and 2 and the complaint will be decided on its own merits. A.S.Oka, J - 4 -