RAMESH DHUDKU PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Criminal Application was admitted on 8th April, 2009 and proceedings were stayed by this Court. The applicants have urged for quashing S.T.C. No. 5487 of 2002 pending on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate F.C. for offence under Section 138 read with 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act on the ground that they are not responsible to pay dues of the respondent- complainant. There was no legally enforceable liability against them in terms of Section 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act as they were never actively involved in the affairs of original accused No. 1 (Hol Telbiya Utpadak Sahakari Sanstha Ltd.).

(2.) In the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act, basically, the complaint petition and annexures are to be seen. If applicants/accused rely to a document, the legal position is, only public document can, at the most, be entertained. The repeated reference given by learned counsel to complaint dated 25th February, 2008 lodged by Rajesh Saraf, will not distort the complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Thereafter, if bunglings that have taken place, it is between petitioner, Chairman or drawer of cheque and the Secretary. However, complainant has no role to play.

(3.) The another aspect in the matter, plea was recorded. After recording plea, it could not be reopened in terms of Chapter 20 of Cr.P.C. Challenge under Section 138 of Act by petitioner before this Court is not sustainable as complaint petition, primarily, illustrate responsibility to face the prosecution indicated in paragraphs 1 and 2 of complaint petition. Criminal Application is dismissed. Rule discharged. The observations are prima facie in nature.