2016 (10) TMI 151

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pondent was allowed. 2. In nutshell, the present dispute is relating to the bouncing of cheques given by the petitioner to the respondent herein in lieu of friendly loan of Rs. 18 lacs. Proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were conducted before the trial Court. Apart from the aforesaid case for recovery of sum of Rs. 18 lacs, another complaint under Section 138 of NI Act is also pending against the petitioner, which was filed by one Shri Yogender Verma for recovery of Rs. 19.5 lacs. The respondent in the present case has got the copy of the undertaking given by the petitioner herein to Shri Yogender Verma admitting the liability towards the respondent and his wife. Though the said Yogender Verma has also file....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....wise. Therefore, it is a settled proposition of law that the admissions made by the party need not to be proved. 4. While challenging the impugned order dated 04.07.2016, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there was no cogent and sufficient ground for allowing the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent. More so, the trial of the case is at final stage and therefore at the fag end of the trial, the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent could not have been allowed. It is contended that the impugned order is passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in a routine manner and without recording the contention of the petitioner, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.....