Judgment Heard Mr. A.S. Mardikar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. V.A. Thakre, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and Mr. A.A. Naik, learned Counsel for respondent No.2. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioners are facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Petitioner No.1 is a Private Limited Company, petitioner No.2 is the Managing Director and petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are the Directors of petitioner No.1 Company. Respondent No.2 is also a businessman and is a dealer in minerals running his business from Kanhan, District Nagpur. The admitted position is that respondent No.2 had bought certain articles from petitioner No.1. It is also admitted position that there was some dispute regarding payment and ultimately it was decided that petitioner No.1 would pay Rs.1,08,00,000/-to respondent No.2 by way of two cheques of Rs.54,00,000/-each. 4. Two cheques bearing Nos.454511 and 454512 dated 15th January, 2010 and 15th February, 2010 respectively were issued by petitioner No.1 to respondent No.2. Both the cheques have been admittedly dishonoured by the bankers of the petitioner. Respondent No.2 had, therefore, issued statutory notice to the petitioners and after statutory period, he has filed two complaints before the concerned Magistrate. In the present petition, the cheque in question is bearing No.454512, which was dated 15th February, 2010. It was presented on 15th February, 2010 and was dishonoured. The contention of the petitioners is that there was Memorandum of Understanding between petitioner No.1 on the one hand and respondent No.2 on the other hand, which was executed when the cheques were handed over to respondent No.2 by petitioner No.1. 5. According to the said Memorandum of Understanding, respondent No.2, it is contended, was supposed to submit bill of lading, contract copy of foreign buyer of respondent No.2 etc. to the petitioners as the documents were required to be submitted in Sales Tax Department. It is submitted by learned Counsel Mr. Mardikar that these documents were not supplied by respondent No.2 and therefore, the cheque could not be honoured. It is submitted that the petitioners were under obligation to honour the cheque only in the event of respondent No.2 supplying the above stated documents. The obligation of the petitioners did not begin at all as respondent No.2 had not performed his part of contract. 6. It is submitted that the petitioners were under obligation to honour the cheque only in the event of respondent No.2 supplying the above stated documents. The obligation of the petitioners did not begin at all as respondent No.2 had not performed his part of contract. 6. Apart form this issue, two other issues came up during the course of arguments. One was relating to territorial jurisdiction of the Court and second was regarding the role of petitioner Nos.3 and 4. As far as territorial jurisdiction is concerned, during the course of hearing, it was made clear to the learned Counsel Mr. Mardikar that the Court may not rule in his favour. Therefore, the said contention was not pressed further. As regards the role of petitioner Nos.3 and 4, the issue will be examined by me at a later stage. Let me first examine the contention with regard to liability of the petitioners to honour the cheque. 7. As already stated earlier, Mr. Mardikar has submitted that the petitioners' liability did not start at all in view of non-supply of documents by respondent No.2. Mr. A.A. Naik, learned Counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that the documents had already been supplied to the petitioners and respondent No.2 is ready to file an affidavit in this regard. Mr. Mardikar has invited my attention to the statement of respondent No.2 recorded by the learned Magistrate on oath under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is submitted that there is no averment in the said statement that the documents were not supplied by respondent No.2. No doubt, such a statement is not made on oath when the statement of respondent No.2 was recorded on oath. However, that by itself will not be sufficient to discard the submission made on behalf of respondent No.2. Ultimately, it will be for the trial Court to decide whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners were under obligation to honour the cheque on 15th February, 2012. It is not possible for this Court, while hearing the petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to go into niceties of case and touch finer aspects of the proposed evidence. 8. As regards role of petitioner Nos.3 and 4, the learned Advocate Mr. It is not possible for this Court, while hearing the petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to go into niceties of case and touch finer aspects of the proposed evidence. 8. As regards role of petitioner Nos.3 and 4, the learned Advocate Mr. Mardikar has invited my attention to the contents of the complaint and has submitted that except a bald statement that petitioner Nos.3 and 4 were also responsible to the Company for conduct of its business, there is nothing in the complaint to indicate as to how the petitioner Nos.3 and 4 were responsible to the Company for conduct of its business. I have gone through the complaint, particularly Para No.3. It is clearly stated in Para No.3 that the negotiations were held by petitioner No.2 on behalf of the petitioner Nos.1,3 & 4. As such it is amply demonstrated in the complaint itself that petitioner No.2 was responsible to the company for conduct of its business. In my considered opinion, petitioner No.1 being a Company and petitioner No.2 being the person responsible to the Company for conduct of its business will have to face the trial. As far as petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are concerned, the proceedings against them will have to be quashed. For all these reasons, I pass the following order. The criminal writ petition is partly allowed. The proceedings against petitioner Nos.3 and 4 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamptee vide Criminal Complaint Case No.103/2010 shall stand quashed. Their bail bonds, if any, shall stand cancelled. Interim order, if any, shall stand vacated. Rule is made absolute in above terms.