JUDGMENT :

S. S. SHINDE, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, with the consent of counsel appearing for parties application is heard and disposed of finally at the stage of admission.

2. This Criminal Application is filed with following substantive prayers:

(a) this Hon'ble Court by exercising its Power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C be pleased to quash and set aside the Order of issuance of process dated 15/2/2018 passed by the Ld. Magistrate, 33rd Court, Ballard Pier, Mumbai in CC No. 11312/SS/2017;

(b) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the order of Bailable Warrant dated 06.04.2018 issued by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, 33rd Court, Ballard Pier, Mumbai against the Applicant in CC No. 11312/SS/2017;

3. It is the case of the applicant that, the Applicant has been named in connection with CC No. 11312/SS/2017 which is pending on the files of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 33rd Court, Ballard Pier, Mumbai. The Respondent No. 1 herein has filed the aforementioned complaint against the Applicant herein under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for the sake of brevity hereinafter will be referred as "said Act") for dishonour of two cheques bearing nos. 000015 for an amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty lacs only) and cheque bearing no. 000016 for an amount of Rs. 47,00,000 (Rupees Forty Seven Lacs only) both drawn on HDFC Bank, Prabhadevi Mumbai. That, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was pleased to record the verification of the authorized representative of the complainant on 15th February 2018.

4. It is further the case of the applicant that, on 15th February 2018 learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 33rd Court, Ballard Pier, Mumbai issued process against the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the said Act. That, the order of issuance of process was made returnable on 6th April 2018. Applicant has received the summons on about 28th March 2018 thereby directing him to appear before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 33rd Court, Ballard Pier to answer a charge under Section 138 r.w. Section 141 of the said Act. It is pertinent to mention here that, the applicant did not receive the copy of the complaint along with the summons as stipulated under law.

5. It is the case of the applicant that, pursuant to the receipt of the summons, the applicant appeared before the learned Magistrate on 6th April 2018 through his advocate. That, on the said date scheduled for appearance the applicant preferred two applications through his advocate. The applicant preferred the first application for seeking exemption of the applicant under Section 205 of the Cr.P.C and the second application was for seeking an adjournment wherein the applicant specifically averred that the copy of the complaint was not accompanied along with the summons received by him and hence the summons has not been served as prescribed by law. It is the case of the applicant that, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was pleased to allow the exemption application and the second application seeking adjournment was rejected.

6. It is further the case of the applicant that, the complainant i.e. Respondent No. 1 herein, thereafter preferred an application for seeking bailable warrant against the applicant which was allowed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, and accordingly bailable warrant has been issued as against the applicant. Applicant being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order of issuance of process dated 15.02.20118 and also the order of issuance of bailable warrant dated 06.04.2018 has preferred this Criminal Application.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that, the learned Magistrate did not appreciate that, demand notice issued by the first Respondent as regards to the dishonour of the subject cheques based on which the aforesaid complaint is filed was never issued to the drawer of the subject cheques. A bare perusal of the subject cheques filed by the first Respondent alo