section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. On behalf of the complainantfirm, respondent No.2 had been prosecuting the said complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Ratnagiri. It is the case of the petitioner that the partnership firm was dissolved by a deed of dissolution dated 22/10/2010. Under the terms of the dissolution, the share of the respondent No.2 in the partnership firm was given to him by the petitioner. That, it was expressly decided and agreed, that no amount was due and payable to the respondent No.2 by the petitioner. That, it was also agreed and decided, that all the properties, which belonged to the partnership firm, would after the dissolution, belong to the petitioner. In the deed of dissolution, a specific mention about the criminal case pending against the respondent No.3, has also been made, and it was agreed that the said case would be prosecuted by the petitioner. Under these circumstances, the petitioner made an application (Exhibit 70) before the learned Magistrate praying that instead of the respondent No.2, he be permitted to prosecute the said complaint, which had been filed by respondent No.1firm. This application was opposed by respondent No.2. The learned Magistrate, by an order dated 01/10/2011, rejected the said application. The petitioner moved the Court of Sessions by filing an application for revision, challenging the said order, but the revision application came to be dismissed. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court invoking its constitutional jurisdiction, and praying that the orders passed by the learned Magistrate and by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Revision be quashed, and that the learned Magistrate be directed to allow the petitioner to be substituted for the original complainant.
