( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 750 OF 2009 Syed Nooruddin Syed Shamsuddin PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ..... Mr. D.P. Palodkar, advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, APP for the respondent/State. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 4th September, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. This petition is filed for quashing of the FIR in crime No. I-92/2009 registered at Begumpura Police Station, Aurangabad, for offence punishable under section 420 of the I.P. Code. There are disputed ( 2 ) questions of fact involved in the petition. The petitioner alleges that there was transaction between complainant Shabana and one Ayyaz Qureshi. He alleges that he was surety for re-payment of the amount which was borrowed by Ayyaz Qureshi from private money lender i.e. husband of Shabana. He lodged a complaint with the police about dispossession from the rented premises by Shabana and her husband alongwith one Syed Abbas, who is her brother. His landlord has also filed such complaint against them. On the other hand, the husband of said Shabana i.e. Shaikh Sadiq s/o Shaikh Munir filed a complaint that there was verbal agreement entered into between him and the petitioner regarding alienation of the house property. He asserted that he and his wife Shabana were shown the house property No. 2-5-75. They alleged that the petitioner obtained an amount of Rs. 5,50,000/- and assured that he would contact the owner of the house and would arrange for execution of the agreement of sale. According to complainant, in or about December, 2008, the petitioner obtained Rs. 5,80,000/- and told that soon, the isar pawti would be executed by the owner. However, the petitioner did not keep his ( 3 ) word and ultimately, on various persuasions, he issued the two (2) cheques in question. When the cheques were submitted to the Bank, the petitioner gave a letter to stop the payment. Therefore, the cheques could not be encashed. 3. Mr. Palodkar would submit that at the most, the case could be of dishonour of the cheque and there is no material to infer element of cheating. He would submit that the FIR is liable to be quashed in view of the fact that the complaint by Shaikh Sadiq is outcome of the revengeful attitude on account of earlier complaint filed by the petitioner. I am of the opinion that section 420 of the I.P. Code also may be attracted besides section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act if an appropriate case is made out. The matter is under investigation at the present. It would be premature, therefore, to quash the FIR. The defence raised by the petitioner cannot be considered as sufficient ground to quash the FIR. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 4. The criminal application No. 2350/2009 is segregated from the writ petition. ( 4 ) 5. The observations made hereinabove be not considered while deciding any other matter. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/criwp750-09