9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 288X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etropolitan Magistrate to the petitioner/accused No. 4. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the complaint filed by respondent No. 1/complainant against her client, accused No. 4 is not maintainable as a bare reading of the complaint does not disclose any offence against the petitioner. She submits that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate completely overlooked the fact that the cheque of Rs. 8 lacs, subject-matter of the complaint filed by respondent No. 1/complainant under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, was issued by respondent No. 3 (Accused No. 2), Shri Ravi Gupta in his capacity as a partner of M/s Sunlit Securities. However, the memo of parties of the complaint filed by respondent No. 1/complainant reveals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. The attention of this Court is also drawn to the notice dated 19-8-2009 addressed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate to the petitioner, wherein she has been described as partner of the firm, M/s Sunlit Financial Services. It is submitted that the petitioner was never a partner of M/s Sunlit Financial Services, which is a private limited company. It is also submitted that the petitioner had filed an application before the court below seeking discharge in the present case, which was disallowed. A second application was filed by the petitioner with a request to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate praying that respondent No. 3 (Accused No. 2) should not be discharged from the matter based on a settlement arrived at between him and the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the partnership firm was being done under the name and style of M/s Sunlit Financial Services with effect from 1-8-1998. However, the very same partnership deed relied upon by respondent No. 1/complainant reveals, in para 1 thereof, that it was agreed between the partners that the business of the firm would be carried on under the name and style of M/s Sunlit Securities with its head office at Dalhousie Road, Pathankot. 6. Pertinently, the memo of parties filed by respondent No. 1/complainant reveals that the complainant had impleaded M/s Sunlit Financial Services as an accused without impleading M/s Sunlit Securities. Counsel for respondent No. 1/complainant is unable to explain the facts and circumstances in which M/s Sunlit Financia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... firm, M/s Sunlit Securities was no longer carrying on business and hence, Account No. 525 in the name of M/s Sunlit Securities be closed and that the cheque book of the account No. 525 had since been lost. It is from the very same account No. 525 that the cheque dated 1-3-2002 was issued in favour of respondent No. 1 and signed by respondent No. 3 as a partner of M/s Sunlit Securities. 8. From the above, it is quite apparent that there are a number of contradictions in the complaint, which are apparent on the face of the record. Even as per the provisions of section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, for a complaint to be maintained under the aforesaid provisions, the complainant is required to implead a person, who has drawn the chequ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
