Judgment 1. This petition has been filed for quashing the order passed by the J.M.F.C. Kolhapur in S.C.C.No.3196 of 2003 and the Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in Criminal Revision Application No.48 of 2007. Besides this, it is also prayed that the proceedings in SCC No.3196 of 2003 pending for trial before the J.M.F.C. Kolhapur be quashed in exercise of this Court’s powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The main contention raised by the learned advocate for the petitioners is that the notice of demand is faulty since the demand does not specify the amount of the cheque which has allegedly been dishonoured. He submits that this notice which has been issued to the petitioners on 21.7.2003 is a composite notice demanding an amount of Rs.3,97,976/- when the cheque allegedly dishonoured was only for an amount of Rs.1,98,988/-. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Rahul Builders v/s M/s.Arihant Fertilizers and Chemicals & anr., reported in 2008 CRI. L.J. 452, to submit that an omnibus notice without specifying as to what was the amount due under the dishonoured cheque would not subserve the requirement of law. 3. In my view, prima facie, the notice of demand cannot be faulted since the amount of the cheque has been mentioned. What the Supreme Court has stated is that, if the amount of the dishonoured cheque is not specified in the demand notice, then it would meet not the legal requirement. However, in the present facts, it appears that the amount for which the cheque was drawn has been mentioned in the notice of demand which also calls upon the petitioners to pay other dues as well. The judgments in the case of Suman Sethi v/s Ajay K. Churiwal and anr., reported in (2000) 2 SCC 380 and in the case of United Credit Ltd. v/s Agro Sales India & ors., reported in 2001 ALL MR (Cri). 1492, cited by the learned advocate for the respondents are apt. 4. The learned advocate for the petitioner has also contended that accused Nos.2 and 3 were in no way concerned with any of the transactions and in fact they have been exonerated by the Magistrate in this complaint. Allegations have only been levelled against accused No.4 who has allegedly signed the cheque. 4. The learned advocate for the petitioner has also contended that accused Nos.2 and 3 were in no way concerned with any of the transactions and in fact they have been exonerated by the Magistrate in this complaint. Allegations have only been levelled against accused No.4 who has allegedly signed the cheque. In my opinion, these questions are required to be agitated at the trial, on evidence. There is no need, therefore, to quash the proceedings. 6. The view expressed above is only prima facie and the trial Court will decide and adjudicate the proceedings without being influenced by this order. 7. Writ petition rejected.