ANU MEHTA Vs. GUNMALA SALES PRIVATE LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With consent of the Counsel for the parties, CRR No. 96 of 2012 (Anu Mehta Vs. Gunmala Sales Private Limited), CRR No. 97 of 2012 (Anu Mehta Vs. Gunmala Sales Private Limited), CRR No. 98 of 2012 (Anu Mehta Vs. Gunmala Sales Private Limited), CRR No. 99 of 2012 (Anu Mehta Vs. Gunmala Sales Private Limited), CRR No. 100 of 2012 (Anu Mehta Vs. Gunmala Sales Private Limited), CRR No. 101 of 2012 (Shantilal Mehta Vs. Phalguni Goods Private Limited), CRR No. 102 of 2012 (Shantilal Mehta Vs. Phalguni Goods Private Limited), CRR No. 103 of 2012 (Shantilal Mehta Vs. Phalguni Goods Private Limited), CRR No. 104 of 2012 (Shantilal Mehta Vs. Phalguni Goods Private Limited), CRR No. 105 of 2012 (Shantilal Mehta Vs. Phalguni Goods Private Limited), CRR No. 106 of 2012 (Shantilal Mehta Vs. Dinesh Mehta), CRR No. 107 of 2012 (Shantilal Mehta Vs. Dinesh Mehta), CRR No. 108 of 2012 (Shantilal Mehta Vs. Dinesh Mehta), CRR No. 109 of 2012 (Shantilal Mehta Vs. Dinesh Mehta) and CRR No. 110 of 2012 (Shantilal Mehta Vs. Dinesh Mehta) are taken together for final hearing and disposal. Counsel for the parties are further in agreement that in all the above-said revision petitions, identical law points have been raised. Therefore, these petitions can be disposed of by a common order. For facility, facts are being gathered from Criminal Revision No. 96 of 2012 (Anu Mehta Vs. Gunmala Sales Private Limited).

(2.) Petitioner, Anu Mehta, as per the averment made in the complaint towards discharge of legal debt or liability, had issued one Account Payee Cheque for a sum of rupees thirty-five lacs in favour of the complainant, Gunmala Sales Private Limited. Cheque was bearing No. 051261 dated 31st July, 2011 and it was drawn on Rajsamand Urban Co-operative Bank Limited, Udaipur Branch, Rajasthan. The said cheque was presented by the complainant opposite party at Canara Bank, Canning Street Branch, Kolkata for encashment. The said cheque was dishonoured by the Banker with the remark "insufficient fund". Upon receiving the intimation from the Banker, complainant issued a statutory notice and, thereafter, the complaint was filed. Atul Agarwal, being one of the Directors of the complainant Company, filed an affidavit under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) The Court below, on 26th September, 2011, had passed the following order: