ANEES NISAR AHMED Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Applications arise in similar background. They have been heard together and would be disposed of by this common judgment challenging order of issuance of process in a complaint under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

(2.) Before I assess the submissions made at the bar in the light of individual facts, it would be convenient to note broad contours of controversy in the present Applications. Primary facts may be noted from Criminal Application Nos.781, 785, 783 of 2022 which are filed by the accused No.3 The amounts mentioned in the complaint were advanced by complainant to the accused firm as a loan on interest. Towards re-payment of the said amount, accused firm issued a promissory note and cheque. On cheque being dishonoured, the complainant issued a demand notice, which according to the applicant had not been received by her. According to the complainant in spite of receipt of notice the accused failed to pay the amount within fifteen (15) days and, therefore, a complaint under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 came to be filed against the applicants.

(3.) Learned Magistrate by order dtd. 2/1/2021 issued process against the applicants. The applicant challenged the order of issuance of process by filing revision before Sessions Court which was dismissed by judgment and order dtd. 18/2/2022. Aggrieved thereby, the applicants have filed present criminal applications.