SUMIT KANDHARI Vs. SURYA INDUSTRIES AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in these petitions is to the order dated 21.08.2015 (Annexure P2) as well as order dated 18.11.2015 (Annexure P3) passed by the trial Court in three criminal complaints No. 631, 632 and 633 dated 02.02.2010 and order dated 02.01.2016 (Annexure P4) passed by the Revisional Court dismissing the revision petition(s) filed by the petitioner.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1/complainant, through its proprietor Ajay Behl, filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'N.I.Act'). It is alleged in the complaint that respondent No.1 was proprietorship firm and Ajay Behl, being proprietor and complainant, filed a complaint against the petitioner, as the cheque issued by the petitioner was dishonoured by the bank.

(3.) During the pendency of the petitions, aforesaid Ajay Behl, appeared as CW1 and his examination-in-chief was recorded and, thereafter, this witness was cross-examined by the petitioner/accused. Subsequently, complainant-Ajay Behl died and his son Aditya Behl filed an application for substituting him in place of deceased Ajay Behl. The said application was contested by the petitioner/accused, however, the trial Court allowed the application and substitute Aditya Behl as complainant in place of his father- Ajay Behl, vide impugned order dated 21.08.2015.