MANILA KUNDARA Vs. AJAY GOYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this judgment, this Court shall dispose of both the captioned petitions, arising out of the same set of facts and circumstances.

(2.) The petitioners herein have assailed their convictions for offence under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [hereafter NI Act], in CT Case Nos. 1523/2016 (Ajay Goyal vs. Deepali Kundra & Ors.) and 1626/2016 (Ajay Goyal vs. Manila Kundra & Ors.).

(3.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant/ respondent and the accused persons/petitioners shared prior business relations, pursuant to which the petitioners herein had purchased jewellery articles from the complainant in June 2014, for a total value exceeding 39 lakhs. It is alleged by the complainant that towards discharge of the said liability, the petitioner Manila Kundara had issued cheque no. 918605 for 23,03,143/- whereas the petitioner Deepali Kundara had issued cheque no. 918642 for 16,36,291/-, both dtd. 27/6/2014, drawn on ICICI Bank, Rohini Branch, in favour of the complainant, which upon presentation were dishonoured with the remarks "Payment Stopped by the Drawer." It is stated that despite service of a statutory legal notice upon the accused persons, calling upon them to discharge the outstanding liability within the prescribed period, no payment was made by them. Consequently, upon expiry of the stipulated period, the complainant was constrained to institute the present complaints under Sec. 138 of the NI Act.