(1.) In view of commonality of facts and issues involved, on the joint request, matters were analogously heard and are decided by this common order.
(2.) In these petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C the petitioner has called in question the proceedings of complaint case No. 6199/2013. Shri Raja Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that court below has erred in passing the order dated 06.07.2013 whereby complaint preferred by respondent under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act ( NI Act) is directed to be registered. The present petitioner was served by issuing notice by registered and ordinary post. Criticizing this order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of NI Act. In para 4 and 5 of the complaint the description of cheques i.e. date, account number and amount etc were shown. It is further averred that said cheques were bounced. Bank gave finding that insufficient amount is there in the account. The said complaint was filed after undertaking necessary formalities.
(3.) Criticizing this order, Shri Raja Sharma submits that respondent / complainant filed a Civil Suit No. 59A/2012 before the District Judge, Shivpuri. Said suit was filed for declaration and permanent injunction. If the averments of the said suit is examined in juxta position to the averments of the compliant under Section 138 of NI Act, it will be clear that there are contradictions in the pleadings. He submits that for this reason, at this stage itself, interference can be made. He placed reliance on (Rashmi Jain Vs. State of U.P.,2014 13 SCC 553), (M.S. Narayan Menon @ Mani Vs. State of Kerala and Anr., 2006 6 SCC 39), (Paramjeet Batra Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Ors., 2012 12 Scale 688). Lastly, reliance is placed on (John K. Abraham Vs. Simon C. Abraham and Anr., 2014 2 SCC 236). On the strength of these judgments, it is contended that this Court may set aside the complaint proceeding at this stage itself.