1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

Criminal Application No. 4180/2008

Ancha Udyog & 2 Others ..vs.. Rajesh Nathulal Mundhada & another

WITH

Criminal Application No. 4177/2008

Ancha Udyog & 2 Others ..vs.. Rajesh Nathulal Mundhada & another

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of

Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or

Court's or Judge's Orders

directions and Registrar's orders.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Sarda, Advocate for the applicants.

CORAM: R. C. CHAVAN, J.

DATED : 7

^th JANUARY, 2009

1.

Heard.

2.

These two applications under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure are directed against the orders

passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola rejecting

the applicants' revision petitions in the context of the

following facts.

The applicants are the partners of a Firm which

had traded with complainant's Firm.

The applicant's-Firm

was found to be liable to pay large sums of money towards

transactions to the complainant. Upon demand being made,

original accused no. 5, who was Manager of the applicant-

Firm as well as another Firm of which the applicants are not

2

partners, issued seven cheques to the complainant.

The

cheques were dishonoured. Two complaints were filed, one

in respect of five dishonoured cheques and another in respect

of two dishonoured cheques. Process was issued against the

applicants.

Upon issuance of process, the applicants took

exception to the order issuing process, contending that the

cheques issued by accused no. 5 had nothing to do with the

applicant's-Firm and order directing issuance of process

ought to be quashed. It may be seen that accused no. 5, who

issued the cheques, is husband of applicant no. 2 Durgadevi.

Learned

Additional

Sessions

Judge,

Akola

rejected

the

revision application holding that the order directing issuance

of process did not call for interference. The reasons given by

learned Additional Sessions Judge show that the cheques

were delivered with a covering letter to the complainant

wherein it was specifically stated that the cheques were

drawn on the account of accused no. 4 for liability of accused

no. 1.

The complaint also contains specific averments that

3

the present applicants are in charge and are responsible for

the affairs of accused no. 1-Firm which owe liability to the

complainant for which the cheques drawn.

3.

Learned counsel for the applicants relied upon two

Authorities.

First is of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in

Bonthagorla Naga Lakshmi ..vs.. Yarasani Lingaiah & anr;

2006 ALL MR (Cri) JOURNAL 235 and another is of Punjab

and Haryana High Court in Gulshan Kumar ..vs.. Dr. Alka

Arora & another; 2007 (1) DCR 43. In the first judgment

wife had prayed for discharge on account of the fact that the

wife and husband both had borrowed a sum of Rs. 30,000/-

for their business. The cheque was issued by the husband. In

this context, the Court held that wife could be discharged.

4.

In the second judgment, the person who was liable

to pay money to the complainant had paid the sum to one

Hardeep Singh Chawla.

When the complainant demanded

money, the said Hardeep Singh Chawla, gave cheque to the

complainant, which was eventually dischonoured. It may be

4

seen that the facts are altogether different. In this case, it is

specifically averred in the complaint that the liability is

particularly of applicant no. 1, of which the applicant nos. 2

and 3 are the partners.

It seems that applicant as well as

other co-accused, one of whom is husband of applicant no. 2,

want to cleverly avoid liability of all by extricating three

applicants first, saying that they had not issued the cheuque

and subsequently

the

remaining accused

would

try to

extricate themselves saying that cheque was not issu