Matter of Maintenance section 125 cr.pc

First complaint was made after one year of marriage by my

daughter. I was not accompanied with my daughter when she made the

complaint. Complaint was not made by me in women cell. Complaint was made

at PS Shakarpur. It is wrong to suggest that I have no knowledge about this

case as the complaint was not made to PS Shakarpur but was made to CAW

Cell. The accused namely Vishwas had come to me several time at my house to

raised demand for money. The demand was some time was Rs. 5,000/- and

some time was Rs. 7,000/- and some time was Rs. 10,000/-. I cannot tell the

date month and year or occasion when the said demand was raised from me. I

had given Rs. 12,000/- to my daughter and she came to me in bewildered

condition as she was beaten up by her husband on account of dowry. She had

come to me alone. At that time was me and my wife present. Said Rs. 12,000/-

was arranged by me by borrowing and by selling some jewellery. Rs. 7,000/-

borrowed by me from my brother in law but I cannot tell the

address where jewellery was sold by me. Police had not recorded my statement

but the recorded the statement of my wife.

Question: Whether you have told the police that from where you had arranged

money of Rs. 12,000/- for giving the same to the daughter?

Answer: Disallowed not relevant.

It is wrong to suggest that no demand was raised by the accused

persons for Rs. 15,000/-. It is wrong to suggest that no Rs. 12,000/- was paid by

me to the accused. No medical was prepared complainant after the incident of

beatings. It is wrong to suggest that since no beatings by accused persons so

no medical was prepared. During the pendency of case no compromise was

taken place. It is correct that daughter was expired at my house. It is correct that

Begum is my real sister and both the another accused is my Bhanja. I

also do not remember the date when I paid Rs. 5,000/- to my daughter. My

daughter told me that accused persons are demanding money for doing thebusiness of gate grill. No paper work done in my presence accused persons

were arrested and got them released from police station. It is wrong to suggest

that I used to demand money from my sister a when she

refuse to pay done I got registered the present case through my daughter against

the accused persons. It is wrong to suggest that no demand of dowry was made

by the accused persons from me or my daughter. It is wrong to suggest that no

beatings was given by my daughter for demand of dowry. It is wrong to suggest

that I never gave Rs. 5,000/- or 12,000/- to my daughter against demand of

accused persons. Some articles recovered from accused persons are lying at

police station Shakarpur and remaining dowry articles are in possession of

accused persons. The articles lying in police station are one broken bed, one

stool, one iron box, one kuran sharif, 3-4 hairs bands and 4 pieces of cloths. It is

wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely.

138 NI Act format

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DELHI

COMPLAINT NO.________________/2011

IN RE:

IN THE MATTER OF

SHRI RAJESH SHARMA

C/O A.R.ENTERPRISES

R/o: K-5/ 12A, STREET NO. 8,

GANGOTRI VIHAR, BHAJANPURA,

NEAR SURYA PUBLIC SCHOOL,

DELHI-110053 ……………………………Complainant

VERSUS

SHRI VARUN BANSAL

S/o SHRI VIRENDER BANSAL

PROPRIETOR, S.S.NUTRITIONS,

At: T-206, INDRA COLONY, NARELA

DELHI – 110051

………………………Accused

P.S:- NARELA

COMPLINANT UNDER SECTION 142, N.I ACT,1881, AGAINST THE ABOVEMENTIONED ACCUSED FOR COMMISION OF OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 138 OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT,1881(AS AMENDED UPTO)

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-

1. That the complainant Rajesh Sharma is peace loving and law abiding citizen of India residing at: - H.No. K-5/ 12A, Street No.8, Gangotri Vihar, Bhajan Pura, Near Surya Public School, Delhi-110053.

2. That the complainant and accused are in acquaintance with each other for the last 4-5 years and share the relationship of service provider and consumer. The complainant deals in the marketting of Box Strapping Machines, Shrink Wrapping Machines, Taping machines Band Sealer, Plastic Strapping Rolls, Bopp Tape, Shrink, Stretch Film, Other packing Material, Spare Parts & Services of all types.

3. That the accused approached the complainant in the month of April 2010, for the supply of PVC Shrink Labels and other related materials and accordingly the complainant supplied the accused with the same vide Book No.20, Invoice No. 986 dated 08-Apr-10 at the consideration of Rs. 28, 077/-. The True copy of the Sales Invoice dated 8-Apr-10 is annexed as Annexure “A”.

4. That, again the accused approached the complainant on dated 14-Apr-10 for the supply of PVC Shrink Labels vide Invoice No.992, Book No.20 for a consideration of Rs. 28, 973/-. The True copy of the Sales Invoice dated 14-Apr-10 is annexed as Annexure “A-1”.

5. That again on the third occasion, the accused approached the complainant on dated 22-Apr-10 for the supply of PVC Shrink Pouches vide Invoice No. 1002, Book No. 021 for a consideration of Rs. 10,020/-. The True copy of the Sales Invoice dated 22-Apr-10 is annexed as Annexure “A-2”.

6. That again on the fourth occasion, the accused approached the complainant on dated 8-May-10 for the supply of PVC Shrink Labels vide Invoice No. 1013, Book No. 021 for a consideration of Rs. 26,520/-. The True copy of the Sales Invoice dated 8-May-10 is annexed as Annexure “A-3”.

7. That again on the fifth occasion, the accused approached the complainant on dated 12-May-10 for the supply of PVC Shrink Pouches & Labels vide Invoice No. 1019, Book No. 021 for a consideration of Rs. 34, 776/-. The True copy of the Sales Invoice dated 12-May-10 is annexed as Annexure “A-4”.

8. That as per the Ledger Details, the complainant supplied the accused with the following material as per the following discipline:

Date of Supply of materials	Invoice Number	Particulars of Material Supplied	Amount (in Rs.)
08-04-2010	986	PVC Shrink Sieves, PVC Shrink Labels	28077/-
14-04-2010	992	PVC Shrink Labels	28973/-
22-04-2010	1002	PVC Shrink Pouches	10020/-
08-05-2010	1013	PVC Shrink Labels	26520/-
12-05-2010	1019	PVC Shrink Pouches, PVC Shrink Labels	34766/-

9. That against the supply of the above mentioned material by the complainant to the accused to the tune of Rs. 1, 28, 356/-, the accused made payments to the complainant only to the tune of Rs. 58, 377/- ( which includes payments made vide Cheque No. 022272 dated 28-04-2010 for Rs. 28077/-, Cheque No. 022290 dated 12-05-2010 for Rs. 10,300/- both drawn on Central Bank of India and a sum of Rs. 20,000/- paid in cash).

10. That the above mentioned accused, in the discharge of above said admitted pending partial liability had issued the following cheque under his signature from the account maintained by the accused with his banker in favour of complainant, the details of which are as under :-

Cheque No.	Cheque Date	Cheque amount	Drawn on Bank
048217	5-Sep-10	Rs. 20,000/-	Central Bank of India, Narela, Delhi – 110040

11. That when the complainant asked from the accused about the pending amount of Rs. 49979/-, the accused replied and told the complainant that he was going through a difficult phase and arrangement of the pending amount would take time. The accused also informed the complainant that some kind of problem had occurred with respect to his bank account and thus requested our client to present the above mentioned cheque dated 5-Sep-10 after a period of at least 3-4 months.

12. That after the expiry of the period of 5 Months from the day of issuance of the cheque, the said Cheque was presented by the complainant with his banker namely HDFC Bank Ltd at Hindustan Times House, 5^th Floor, 18/ 20, KG Marg, New Delhi-110001 on dated 17-Feb-11 but to his much shock and dismay, got surprised when, complainant came to his knowledge that the said cheque was returned unpaid by banker along with the Return-Memo. Dt. 17-Feb-11, for the Reason of “Insufficient Funds” received in due course, to the complainant, after Few Days of dishonour of said cheque. The Original cheque and Original Memo of accused banker Dt. 17-Feb-11 are annexed herewith as Annexure – “B” & Annexure “C” respectively.

13. That, thereafter, complainant through his counsels Sh. Suvrat Singh Tomar and Sushil Jain, Advocates having its office at D-423, Karkardooma Courts Advocates Chambers, Delhi-110092, sent a Legal Notice of Demand Dated 10-Mar-11 ( Posted on 11-Mar-11 ) through Registered Speed Post to the accused intimating him about the dishonour of above said cheque and calling him upon to make the payment of the dishonoured cheque Amount either to the complainant directly at her address or to his counsel at his above mentioned address, Within Fifteen Days of Receipt of that Legal Notice, Failing upon which the complainant would be compelled / enforced to take further legal action ( Civil or Criminal ) against the accused without further intimation to him .The Copy of the legal Demand Notice sent to accused satisfying the requirement U/s 138(b) of N.I. Act ,1881, is annexed herewith as Annexure D.

14. That the accused has failed to make the payment of the amount of dishonoured cheque in question despite the receipt of legal notice which was sent at the last given address of the accused, through Registered Speed Post Dt. 11-Mar-11. That said legal notice was duly served upon the accused as per the provisions of law and satisfying the requirements U/s 27, General Clauses Act and U/S, 144 Indian Evidence Act., 1872 . The Original Registered Speed Post Receipt is annexed herewith as Annexure E.

15. That due to dishonour of the cheque issued by the said accused, and despite the receipt of the said legal notice of the complainant's counsel, the Accused has not made payment of the dishonoured cheque’s amount demanded within 15 days of receipt of the said legal notice , to the complainant ,hence the said accused is liable to make good the said payment and aforesaid dishonoured amount is legally enforceable debts upon him , thus it is clear that the said accused has committed offence , punishable under Section 138 ( as amended up to date ) of the Negotiable Instruments Act.1881 and the said offence has been committed within the jurisdiction of this court .

16. That upon aggrieved from the acts of the accused and suffering huge wrong full loss, the complainant prefers this complaint before this Hon’ble Court and the present complaint is being filed within the period of limitation as provided in section 142(b) of the Negotiable Instrument Act. List of Document and list of Witnesses, are annexed with this complaint.

PRAYER

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed before this Hon’ble Court that in view of the above mention facts and circumstances of the present matter, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

1. Summon, Try and punish the accused for offence Under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act:

2. Pass any other further order (s) in view of the above mention facts and circumstances of the present case, Which this Hon’ble Court may deem Fit and proper in the interest of justice as well as in the interest of complainant.

3. And also direct the accused to pay compensation U/S 357 of Cr.P.C. to the complainant against dishonour of Cheque

4. And such other further amount as compensation which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in respect of charges, litigation expenses, and to compensate delay and harassment to the complainant payable by the accused.

Date: 02-04-11

Place: Delhi (Complainant)

Through its legal counsels,

(Suvrat Singh Tomar)(Sushil Jain)

Advocates