9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 166X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CMM, who thereafter marked the case to the concerned Trial Court. The Trial Court after going through the contents of the complaint and evidence on record, issued summons. However, nowhere it is provided in Section 138 142 of N.I. Act that the summons shall be issued within the prescribed time. There is no merits in the petition - petition dismissed. - MR. SURESH KUMAR KAIT J. Petitioner Through: Md. Ehraz Zafar, Mr. Akash Tyagi and Mr. Satatya Anand, Advs. Respondents Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmed, APP for State. Adv. (appearance not given) for R-2 J U D G M E N T (ORAL) 1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks direction thereby to set aside the impugned summoning order dated 11.01.2017 passed by the Ld MM, (NI Act)-04 South-East, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e business. 5. Mr. Anuj Kumar for the first time, introduced the Respondent No.2 to the Petitioner only in the month of January 2013 and informed the Petitioner about the above mentioned facts pertaining to the Loan borrowed by him from the Respondent No.2 for the expansion of their business and requested the Petitioner to handover the Security Cheque to the Respondent No.2 that too from his personal account with an assurance that the Respondent No.2 shall not present this cheque for encashment as Mr. Anuj Kumar has already promised the Respondent No.2 that before the expiry of the validity period of the cheques, he will make all arrangements to issue the cheque from the bank account of the Company and after receiving the said cheques and p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, but, the true fact is that the said Legal Notice has never been received by the Petitioner and hence on this ground itself the whole complaint is bad in Law. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that upon bare perusal of the Court file, it appears that though this complaint has been filed on 02.05.2013 before Ld.CMM, and thereafter listed before the Ld. Trial Court on 04.05.2013, but very surprising and shocking that the present Summon has been served by the Petitioner for first time that too by service of affixation for appearing before Ld. Trial Court on 17.04.2017. From the Court file, it appears that after filing of the complaint and getting the Notice issued in the present case in 2013 itself, the Respondent No.2 f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Another vs. Reliance Industries Limited And Others (2012) 13 SCC has held as under:- 23.In Japani Sahoo vs. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty, (2007) 7 SCC 394, in para 48, this Court held that: (SCC p.411) 48 So far as the complainant is concerned, as soon as he files a complaint in a competent court of law, he has done everything which is required to be done by him at that stage. Thereafter, it is for the Magistrate to consider the matter to apply his mind and to take an appropriate decision of taking cognizance, issuing process or any other action which the law contemplates . This Court further held that the complainant has no control over those proceedings . Taking note of Sections 468 and 473 of the Code, in para 52, this Court held that: (SCC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
