PADMA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these C482 petitions, identical issues are involved, and, therefore, all are being decided by a common order.

(2.) In all the cases, separate com plaints were filed by the respondent under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, pending in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate/ 1st Addl. Civil Judge, (Sr. Div.), Haridwar. In these com plaints, process were initiated and the applicants were summoned and now the proceeding of each of the complaint case has been challenged in these C482 applications on the ground that the notices issued to the applicants does not contain raising of demand, and, as such, the same does not fulfil the requirement of Sec. 138 of N.I . Act which invalidates the entire proceedings.

(3.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the allegations made in the com plaint or the statement of the witnesses recorded in support of the same, taken as their face value make out absolutely no case against the applicants/ accused and the com plaint also does not disclose the essential ingredients of the offence which is alleged against the accused. The main contention of the learned counsel for the applicant for challenging the proceedings is that the learned Magistrate have not considered that in the mandatory notice there is no dem and at all for the cheque amount. I n reference to this, the learned counsel for the applicant shows the notice dtd. 22/1/2020, in order to establish that in the said notice there is no dem and of the amount as shown in the cheque, and, as such, the proceedings cannot be initiated on the com plaint m oved by the respondent.