IMPORTANT POINT
Powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India cannot be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution.

Anuja Prabhudessai, J.—The present petition impugns the order dated 16th October, 2015, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay dismissed the revision application No. 956 of 2015 and thus confirmed the order dated 11th November, 2014 issuing process against the petitioners for offences under Section 420, 467, 471, r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Brief facts necessary to decide this petition are as under:—

The petitioners are the accused in Complaint No.4700079/SW/2014 filed by the Respondent No.1 in the Court of Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s 47th Court, at Esplanade, Mumbai. The Respondent No.1 shall be hereinafter referred to as the ‘complainant’ and the Petitioner shall be referred to as the ‘accused’. The complainant is one of the Directors of

M/s. Indospin Filati Limited (the Company). The complainant had alleged that the accused No.1 is a broker in raw cotton market. The Company had purchased raw cotton from several persons, including M/s. Mahavir Ginning and Pressing Factory, introduced by the accused No.1.

3. The Company of the complainant had purchased 96 bales of cotton from M/s. Mahavir Ginning and Pressing Factory under two invoices being Invoice No.551 and 552 dated 13th April, 2011 for Rs.27,19,446/- and Rs.27,03,401/- respectively. The Company had handed over to the accused No.1 two post dated, signed Blank cheques bearing nos.962246 and 962247, towards security for payment of price under the said invoices. The complainant claims that between 8.6.2011 and 6.1.2012 the company paid Rs.1,21,23,956/- to M/s. Mahavir Ginning & Pressing Factory. The said amount included the price of cotton bales under invoice Nos.551 and 552.

4. The complainant alleged that the accused No.1 did not return the said two cheques, but handed over the said two cheques to the accused Nos.2 and 3. The accused Nos.2 and 3 inserted the details such as date, amount and the name of the payee that of the accused No.1 and presented the same to the bank for encashment. The said cheques were dishonoured and as a consequence thereof the accused No.2 filed a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, being complaint No. 17707 of 2012 against the complainant Director of the Indospin Company and other Directors.

5. The complainant claimed that the company did not have any business transactions with the accused Nos.2 and 3 and that the company had not issued the said cheques in favour of the accused No.2 towards payment of any liability. The complainant claimed that the accused had forged the cheques and deposited the same in the bank with an intention of cheating the Company.

6. Upon considering the allegations made in the complaint, the verification statement, report under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. as well as the other document placed on record, the learned Magistrate issued process for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 471 r/w. 34 of the IPC. Being aggrieved by this order the accused filed revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, which came to be dismissed by the impugned order.

7. Mr. Jha, the learned counsel for the accused contends that the complaint is nothing but a counter blast to the complaint filed by the accused under Section 138 of the NI Act. He has submitted that there is inordinate delay in filing the complaint besides the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of the offence. He has relied upon Hriday Ranjan Prasad Verma & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Anr., (2004) 9 SCC 168, Anjani Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Anr., (2008) 5 WSCC 248, Eicher Tractor Ltd. & Ors. vs. Harihar Singh and Anr., (2008) 16 SCC 763, Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Rajiv Dubey (2009) 1 SCC 706, D.P. Guati Manager Accounts Jetking Infotrain Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2015) 11 SCC 730, Vijay Shekhar & Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (2004) 4 SCC 666 and Kishan Singh Vs. Gurpal Singh and Ors.(2010), 8 SCC 775.

8. In Hriday Ranjan Prasad Ver