9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (4) TMI 755X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt Case No. 976/1/2005 titled "Praveen Kumar Jain v. R.D. Sharma and Ors.," pending before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate. It is submitted by the petitioner that the case in question was filed by the respondent on the basis of dishonour of a cheque dated 2nd August, 2004 for a sum of ₹ 1 lac. The cheque was issued by Shri Ram Dev Sharma, respondent No. 2 in the petition, in f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one who contacted the complainant for loan and was responsible for the business of the company. 3. A perusal of the complaint would show that complainant has not mentioned as to when the proprietorship firm was converted into a partnership firm and when it got converted into a company. Rather in the complaint, it is stated that the coaching business was being run by the accused Nos. 1 to 4 and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r or proprietor of firm when cheque got dishonoured or he was the person responsible for non-payment of cheque amount, no offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act can be made out against the petitioner. 4. In view of my foregoing discussion, the proceedings as against the petitioner, are liable to be quashed and are hereby quashed in Complaint Case No. 976/1/2005 titled "Prave ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
