Full Text
RAJKUMAR BANSAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Yatendra Sharma, Advocate.
VCTSUS
M/S.SHARAD ADVERTISING PVT. LTD. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Vipin Pillai, Advocate.
'l r' + CRL.M.C. 607120L0
Through: Mr.Yatendra Sharma, Advocate.
VCTSUS
I Through: Mr.Yatendra Sharma, Advocate.
VCTSUS
2011:DHC:12111
16.09.2011
ORDER
1. The respondent instituted complaints under Section l38lL42 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 42O IPC in which the complainant and the accused were described as under:- "M/s.Sharad Advertising Pvt. Ltd. Through its Recovery Office'r Sh.Ravi Kumar Address: L84, Patparganj, Industrial Area, Delhi...ComPlainant VCTSUS I = Ambic Ayurved Through its Authorized Persons
1. Raj Kumar Bansal
2. Atul Bansal
3. Vinay Bansal Office: Ambic Complex, Kunda Road, l.E. Partapur, Meerut-250103 (U.P.) llnd Add: 68 Manoranjan Park, Saket, Meerut, U.P....Accused"
2. In the complaints it is averred that when the cheques issued by the accused were presented they were returned with 1 the banker on which the cheques were ilrawn with the remarks 'Accounts closed'.
3. lt is then averred that the cheques were issued with a mala-fide intent by the accused
4. Suffice would it be to state that neither in the memo of parties nor in the body of the complaint the juristic entity of 'Ambic Ayurved' has been disclosed. 5, Whether it is a private limited company or a Crl.M.C. No.244512009,6O[7] /20t0 & 608/2010 V partnership firm or a sole proprietory firm; nothing has been stated.
6. In what manner the 3 named person; viz. Rajkumar Bansal, Atul Bansal and Vinay Bansal would be the authorized persons of Ambic Ayurged has not been stated.
7. Suffice would it be to state that as disclosed in the memo the accused is only one i.e. Ambic Ayurved. lt is said accused which is sought to be served through the stated authorized persons.
8. Under the circumstances, it has to be held that the complaint discloses no cause of action against Raj Kumar Bansal, Atul Bansal or Vinay Bansal.
9. Under the circumstances the 3 captioned petitions stand disposed of as under:- ( iii) Crl.M.C. No.2445 t2009 is allowed. In that, the complaint as also the summoning order relatable thereto stand quashed qua Raj Kumar Bansal. Crl.M.C. No.607/2010 is allowed. In that, the thereto stand quashed qua Raj Kumar Bansal and Atul Bansal. Crl.M.C. No.608/2010 is allowed. In that, the thereto stand quashed qua Raj Kumar Bansal and Atul Bansal. crl. M. A. No.2248l2010 in crl. M. c. No.607',-!010 and (i)
(ii) t Crl.M.C. No.2445/2O09, 607 /2Ot0 & 608/2010 Crl. M.A. No.2250/2010 in Crl.M.C. No.608/2010 Dismissed as infructuous. v SEPTEMBER ].6, ZOLL dk,) -^'11 PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.