JUDGMENT Kanawaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. -The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of Complaint No.338/2009 pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bandikui, Dausa for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Mr. Pankaj Gupta, the learned counsel for the respondent has drawn attention of this Court to the Complaint Annexure-4. In Para-5 of the said complaint, it has been specifically stated that as a consideration for retirement of the complainant as a partner, amount of Rs.7 lakhs was agreed to be paid to the respondent no.2. It is submitted that in pursuance of the said agreement, amount of Rs.3 Lakhs was given as cash and four cheques each amounting to Rs. 1 Lakh were given to the complainant-respondent retiree partner. However, the said cheques on presentation had bounced. 3. Para 5 of the Complaint (Annexure-4) reads as under:- 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that no dissolution deed of partnership has been placed on record, therefore, bald oral assertion made in above Para 5 cannot be taken into consideration. It is contended that document or dissolution deed ought to have been placed on record to fortify the averments made in the complaint. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that a specific notice was given to the petitioners stating that amount was agreed to be paid to the complainant at the time of his retirement from the firm and no reply was given by the accused petitioners to the statutory notice issued by the complainant respondent, hence allegations were impliedly accepted and have gone unchallenged. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment rendered by Bombay High Court in Mukesh Raoji Navadhare vs. Ajit Bhaskar Kasbekar & Anr., Criminal Writ Petition No. 1526/2001, decided on 3.12.2009 to urge that a partner cannot prosecute, another partner for dishonour of the cheque issued by the firm. The facts of the present case are distinguishable. 7. In the present case, cheque was issued as a consideration towards retirement of the partner. Whether any document was executed or not, whether oral statement made by the accused or averment made in the complaint can be relied or not, is in realm of appreciation of evidence. The facts of the present case are distinguishable. 7. In the present case, cheque was issued as a consideration towards retirement of the partner. Whether any document was executed or not, whether oral statement made by the accused or averment made in the complaint can be relied or not, is in realm of appreciation of evidence. Hence, no ground is made to entertain the present petition and the same being devoid of merits is dismissed, with liberty to the petitioners to raise all arguments before the trial court at appropriate stage.