9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 946X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No.1 Complainant that both the accused, who are husband and wife, approached to the Complainant through one of his client Mr. Nitul Unadkani in a legal matter with Mr. Chetan Desai. It is the contention of the complainant that from Jun 2015 till April 2016, the complainant assisted accused Nos.1 and 2 in preparing replies and notice of motion, conference, co-coordinating with counsel, filing vakalatnamas and appearing through advocates' office and also as counsel in Summary Suit Nos.399 of 2015 (Sion Finance and Leasing private Limited v/s. Alka Avhad); , 400 of 2015 (Sion finance and Leasing Private Limited v/s. Khandu Avhad), and 1171 of 2015 (A R Shetty v/s Khandu Avhad) in the City Civil Court at Bombay. The Complainant has stated that there are approximately 40 emails exchanged between the complainant, accused Nos.1 and 2, and Mr. Nitu Unadkant between June 2015 and April 2016. The complainant has raised a professional bill for the legal work done by him to represent the accused Nos.1 and 2 in legal proceedings between the said period. It is the case of the complainant that thereafter in partial discharge of legal liability, accused No.1 informed the complainant that due to s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e blank cheque to Respondent No.1. The husband of the Petitioner has timely paid Respondent No.1 his litigation fees. 7. According to the Petitioner and her husband, Respondent No.1 was not properly following his matter and not attending the same, hence accused No.1 asked Respondent No.1 to give his no objection on the vakalatnama, and after lot of effort Respondent No.1 has given his no objection upon receipt of the due amount of the professional fees. It is submitted that Respondent No.1 used the blank cheque signed by accused No.1 Mr. Khandu K Avhad against him with wrongful intention and then he filed a complaint against the Petitioner and her husband - accused No.1. It is submitted that Respondent No.1 has, with an oblique motive, filed the complaint against the Petitioner and accused No.1, not disclosing true and correct facts. It is done with a deliberate malafide intention to put pressure and blackmail to the Petitioner and her husband. Respondent No.1 without applying his mind has made the Petitioner as co-accused as the Petitioner is victims of circumstances. It is submitted that neither the said notice nor the complaint in any manner establishes the role of the Petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... summons against the accused, as the Petitioner did not availe the remedy before the revisional court and has directly approached this Court praying to stay the trial which has to commence on the next fixed before the trial Court. It is submitted that though the said summoning order was served upon the Petitioner, the Petitioner chose not to appear before the magistrate, and it is after bailable warrant was issued, she appeared before the trial court and obtained the bail, and the plea was recorded. The learned counsel for Respondent No.1/Complainant submits that since the Petitioner was medically unfit, her husband has issued the cheque on her behalf to fulfill her legal obligation and therefore, there is a joint liability of the Petitioner as well as her husband. It is submitted that since the Petitioner and her husband were the clients of Respondent No.1, a bill in the name of the Petitioner's husband was raised considering the condition of the Petitioner. In support of the aforesaid contentions, the learned counsel for Respondent No.1 relied upon the judgments of the Delhi High Court in the case of Rajesh Agarwal v/s. State and Anr in Cri. M. C. No.1996/2010 and in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Petitioner was medically unfit, her husband has issued the cheque on her behalf to fulfill her legal obligation and therefore there is a joint liability of both the Petitioner and her husband. The learned counsel for Respondent No.1 invites attention of this Court to the Case Status/Case Details which are annexed to the affidavit in reply at Exhibit A. Perusal of the said case status indicates that it relates to the notice of motion, and in the column of Respondent and Advocate the name of Petitioner Mrs. Alka Avhad and the name of advocate Ms. SRM Law Associates appear. The learned counsel for Respondent No.1 also invites the attention of this Court to e-mail dated 08/01/2016 sent by Respondent No.1 to the husband of Petitioner and one Mr. Nitul Bhai which is annexed to the affidavit in reply at Exhibit B on page 62. A careful perusal of the said email would disclose that there is a specific reference regarding notice of motion and condonation of delay in Summary Suit No.399. There is also reference of Summary Suit No.400 and Summary Suit No.1171 of 2015. Respondent No.1 has placed on record the emails exchanged between him and the husband of the Petitioner. In the said emails ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the parties to lead evidence in that regard. It is an undisputed fact that the cheque issued by the husband of the Petitioner was dishonoured. Whether the said cheque was issued towards discharging the legal liability of both the accused or, according to Petitioner, Respondent No.1 used the blank cheque signed by her husband with wrongful intention is a matter of evidence, which will be adduced during the trial. 12. Now coming to the judgments cited by the learned counsel for Respondent No.1. In Rajesh Agarwal's case the Delhi High Court in paragraph 8 of the said Judgment observed thus :- "Since offence under section 138 of N. I. Act is a document based technical offence, deemed to have been committed because of dishonour of cheque issued by the accused or his company or his firm, the accused must disclose to the Court as to what is his defence on the very first hearing when the accused appears before the Court. If the accused does not appear before the Court of MM on summoning and rather approaches High Court, the High Court has to refuse to entertain him and ask him to appear before the Court of MM as the High Court cannot usurp the powers of MM and entertain a plea of ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
