PRASHANT SHARMA Vs. DHEERAJ SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since in both the petitions identical questions of law is involved, therefore, both the petitions are being taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. For the sake brevity, to decide the controversy, facts of C 482 No. 99 of 2012 are being taken up.

(2.) By way of present petition, petitioner is assailing summoning order dated 17.09.2011 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar whereby petitioner was summoned on the complaint filed under Section 138 of the NI Act.

(3.) Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that respondent / complainant, herein, filed a complaint against the petitioner, herein, under Section 138 of the NI Act stating therein that petitioner and respondent are relatives and business partners. Petitioner used to borrow money from the complainant / respondent; on the settlement of account, Rs. 13,00,000/- were found outstanding towards the petitioner; petitioner issued one cheque bearing no. 100003 of dated 25.02.2011 amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/- and another cheque bearing no. 100004 of dated 25.02.2011 amounting to Rs. 4,00,000/- of HDFC Bank, Ranipur Mod, Jwalapur and two other cheques, in discharge of his financial liability were also issued by the petitioner. An agreement was also executed between the parties on 11.06.2010, which was duly signed by the parties and got notarized; both cheques were deposited in the account of complainant / respondent maintained in State Bank of India, Ranipur, Haridwar on 22.07.2011; both cheques were returned with an endorsement "stop instruction" on 25.07.2011; a statutory notice was got issued by the complainant through his Advocate Uttam Singh Chauhan by registered post AD on the correct address of the petitioner asking the petitioner to make payment of the cheque amount of both the cheques within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice, however, petitioner failed to make payment of the amount mentioned in the cheques, therefore, complaint.