SUSHILA BADOLA Vs. TUSHAR PATNI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the Complaint Case No.21/1 dated 8th February, 2010 and the notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. dated 6th April, 2010 and further proceedings arising out of the complaint pending before learned Metropolitan Magistrate.

(2.) The Criminal Complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") for a sum of Rs.75 lacs against alleged liability to pay an amount of Rs.3,00,00,000/- filed by respondent No.1 through respondent No.2 Mr. Prashant Mamgain who is allegedly holding a Special Power of Attorney of Mr. Tushar Patni/respondent No.1. It was claimed in the complaint that the respondent No.1 had given a friendly loan of Rs.2,00,00,000/- in cash way back on 10th May, 2006 to the petitioner. It is alleged by the petitioner that she has never seen respondent No.1 in her life and therefore, the question of taking friendly loan to the extent of Rs.2 Crores in cash, does not arise. It is averred in the petition that on 12th March, 2010, the petitioner received NBW which was issued against her for 18th March, 2010 for bouncing a cheque No.200451 dated 1st December, 2009 for an amount of Rs.75 lacs by the Court of MM, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi. It is averred that she is a permanent resident of Flat No.A-212, Samachar Apartments, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I Extension, Delhi- 110091. The respondent No.2 is a resident of Flat No.C-2/26, Mangal Apartments, Vashundra Enclave, Delh-110096. The address of respondent No.1 is P.O. Box No.880, Abu Dhabi, UAE, as given by respondent No.2. The petitioner has never met respondent No.1.

(3.) The brief facts as per petitioner are that the petitioner appeared before Metropolitan Magistrate on that day with an application for cancellation of NBW and grant of bail, who admitted the petitioner on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1 lakh with a surety of the like amount. The counsel for the complainant was directed to furnish the complete set of papers to the counsel representing the petitioner herein. He was then given the documents against the acknowledgment relating to the complaint in question.