M/S. ANGEL ADMARK PVT. LIMITED, 404, PRAGATI TOWER RAJENDRA PLACE, NEW DELHI Vs. M/S. NOIDA SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PARK LTD (NSTPL), SCINDIA VILLA, SAROJINI NAGAR, RING ROAD, NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the complainant in Crl.M.P.No. 2077/2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kakkanad, Ernakulam. The 1st accused in the complaint is the 1st respondent company and accused 2 & 3 therein are respondents 2 & 3 who are the Managing Director and Director (Finance) of the said company respectively alleging offence under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The allegations against the accused persons are that the 1st respondent company had issued a cheque for Rs.7.8 lakhs to the complainant company towards discharge of a legal debt and when the cheque was sent for collection, it has been returned as 'exceeds arrangement'. The petitioner had sent statutory notice as per Sec. 138(b) of the N.I.Act to respondents 1 to 3. Learned Magistrate, after verifying the records, has dismissed the complaint under Sec. 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stating that the demand notices have not been served to accused Nos. 2 & 3 and thereby accused Nos.2 & 3 have no knowledge about the demand notice and that it has been signed by someone else. Since the notices have not been duly served on respondents 2 & 3, the learned Magistrate had dismissed the complaint at the stage of Sec. 203 of the Crimial P.C. The learned Magistrate has also stated in the impugned order that acknowledgement card is signed by some other person and there is no resemblance with signatures in the acknowledgement cards and the signatures in the cheque signed by accused 2 & 3. The impugned order passed by the learned magistrate reads as follows:

(2.) On going through the records produced, it is seen that the demand notices have not been served on the accused Nos.2 and 3. The copies of Acknowledgement Cards produced reveal that the notices were in fact signed by some security personnel of one Jain Studio and the signature in those cards do not bear any resemblance with the signatures of A2 and A3 in the cheque. There are no averments in the complaint to the effect that the accused persons have any relation with the Jain Studio and there are no pleadings that the accused persons 2 and 3 have knowledge about the contends of the demand notice, even through the notices have been received by some person other than the accused. As there is no legally valid demand served on the accused persons 2 and 3, it cannot be held that all legal steps have been taken by the complainant in instituting this complaint.

(3.) The complaint is dismissed U/s.203 of Cr.P.C, in the above said circumstances."