Laxmi Devi Singhal VS Kailash Singhal

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

SUJOY PAUL
Laxmi Devi Singhal – Appellant
Versus
Kailash Singhal – Respondent

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Raja Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent:Anmol Khedkar, Advocate

ORDER :

Sujoy Paul, J.

In view of commonality of facts and issues involved, on the joint request, matters were analogously heard and are decided by this common order.

Facts are taken from M.Cr.C.147/2014

2. In these petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C the petitioner has called in question the proceedings of complaint case No. 6199/2013. Shri Raja Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that court below has erred in passing the order dated 06.07.2013 whereby complaint preferred by respondent under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act (NI Act) is directed to be registered. The present petitioner was served by issuing notice by registered and ordinary post. Criticizing this order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of NI Act. In para 4 and 5 of the complaint the description of cheques i.e. date, account number and amount etc were shown. It is further averred that said cheques were bounced. Bank gave finding that insufficient amount is there in the account. The said complaint was filed after undertaking necessary formalities.

3. Criticizing this order, Shri Raja Sharma submits that respondent/complainant