2018 (11) TMI 184

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... three cheques, they bearing no.364267 dated 11.10.2007 for Rs. 3,50,000/-; no.364269 dated 13.10.2017 for Rs. 3,36,875/-; and no.364268 dated 15.10.2007 for Rs. 3,50,000/-, all drawn on State Bank of India, it being his case that the cheques had been issued against the account of company M-Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd. (second respondent) acting through its director (third respondent) for liability due, which upon presentation were returned unpaid by the bank with report "insufficient funds", no payment having been made inspite of the notice of demand issued and served. In the complaint, the accused was described as Mr. Amit Jha, Director of M-Tech Developers Private Limited, ANS House, 144/2 Ashram, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110 012. 2. The ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....82 Cr. PC which has been resisted by the second respondent. 5. It needs to be noted that in the criminal complaint, the second respondent was described (in para 2) as the accused company which had been acting through its director (i.e. third respondent), the liability represented by the three cheques being of the said company, the said cheques having been issued against its account. After the said cheques had been returned unpaid, the complainant had sent a legal notice of demand on 01.11.2007. It does appear that the said notice of demand was addressed to the third respondent. But then, it is also clear that the third respondent was not called upon by the said demand notice to be accountable for any personal liability. Reference was mad....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., (1999) 5 SCC 693]. In the present case, as already noticed, this is how both the third respondent and the second respondent understood and construed the demand notice to which reply was sent on 19.11.2007 by the second respondent. 8. In the complaint, reference was made to the company as an accused. It appears that under some confusion, inadvertently the name of the company was omitted from the array of accused. The complainant had brought an application immediately, in 2008 itself, to make suitable correction. By the time, the said application came up for consideration, the summoning order had already been passed. Since the Magistrate did not have the power of review, there was some difficulty in entertaining the said request at th....