I N D E X
S.NO. PARTICULARS C. FEES PAGES
1. Memo of Parties
2. Complaint Under Section 138 of
NI Act with list of witnesses
3. Evidence by way of Affidavit
4. List of document with documents
5. Vakalatnama
Delhi
Dated : 26th FEBURARY 2009
COMPLAINANT
THROUGH
ADVOCATES
=========== ================
IN THE COURT OF CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
COMPLAINT CASE NO. ……….. OF 2009
IN THE MATTER OF:
Yyy
…… COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
Sss
…… ACCUSED
MEMO OF PARTIES
Yyy
Address….
……. COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
Sss
Address….
……… ACCUSED
Delhi,
Dated 26.02.2009
COMPLAINANT
THROUGH
ADVOCATES
======= ===============
IN THE COURT OF CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
COMPLAINT CASE NO. ……….. OF 2009
IN THE MATTER OF:
Yyy
…… COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
Sss
…… ACCUSED
POLICE STATION: …..
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 138 OF NI ACT
Complainant Most Respectfully Submits:
1. That the complainant Sh. Yyy is Proprietor of M/s kkk, and is doing business of law books at place…. and is competent to file present complaint.
2. That the Accused Sh. Sss is sole Proprietor and owner of M/S Ttt and is doing business of law books. Accused had purchased law books from the complainant on credit basis on various dates, and maintaining a running account. A credit balance of Rs. 3,20,454/- is outstanding and recoverable from accused on account.
3. That Accused had issued various account payee cheques to the complainant towards discharge of its legally enforceable liability and had been time and again requesting on due dates of encashment not to present same on due dates. Accordingly, some of the cheques has became stale and could not be presented on due dates. On 5.09.2008 complainant issued legal notice of demand, however accused kept on requesting time to clear outstanding payments.
4. That following three cheques, were issued by accused towards part payment of outstanding liability :
(A) Cheque No. …. dated 20.7.2008 for Rs 20,000/-
(B) Cheque no. ….. dated 10.8.2008 for Rs 20,000/-
(C) Cheque no. …. dated 20.8.2008 for Rs 20,000/-
All payable at Oriental Bank of Commerce, place ….
5. That, As per instructions of Accused, Complainant presented the above mentioned three cheques for encashment on 12.1.2009 after due date of presentation to its banker Syndicate Bank, at place …. and all three cheques were returned by banker of Accused on 12.1.2009 for the reason of “Funds Insufficient”.
6. That Complainant sent a legal notice of demand under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act dated 19.01.2009, by Registered A.D., through Advocate, which was duly served upon accused by Regd. A.D. The Accused, did not care to comply with the terms of the said notice required under the law.
7. That on account of dishonor of the above mentioned cheques Accuse Sh.sss Sole Prop. of M/S Ttt, who is sole proprietor and person in charge, for the day to day business, conduct and affairs of M/S Ttt, has committed offences under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Under S. 420 of IPC, and are liable for prosecution, punishments, fines and penalties.
7 That from the conduct and behavior of the accused, it is established that accuse was having malafide intentions from the very beginning and accuse defrauded and cheated the complainant. Accused has intentionally and deliberately issued these three cheque without having sufficient funds in Bank Account and have committed offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, under Section 420 of IPC.
8 That the present complaint is the first complaint against the dishonor of 3 cheques in question and the same is being filed within the prescribed period. That accuse has committed offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and is liable to be summoned, tried and punished.
9 That the complainant is the resident of Delhi and the dealing were done at shop of complainant at Delhi and the said Cheque in question was issued and handed over to the complainant at his Shop at Delhi within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court therefore, this Hon’ble Court has the jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint.
10 . That the facts stated in the complaint are true and correct.
11 . The complaint is within limitation.
PRAYER:
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may take cognizance of this complaint and summon the accused, try and punish him for the offence committed by him under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, as is provided under the law.
It is further prayed that the complainant be compensated by imposing fine upon the accused person under Section 357 Cr.P.C.
Any other order or further relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems, fit and proper be also granted.
Delhi
Dated: 26 FEBURARY ,2009
COMPLAINANT
THROUGH
ADVOCATES
======== ============ ==================
TRANSIT BAIL : THEORY:
When a person is arrested by the Police, the Police Personnel of the out-station Police Station cannot arrest a person, only Local Police can arrest him. Local Police do get the Warrant issued by the Court located at some other part of the Country, along with the Team of Policemen, go to the place mentioned in the Warrant, get the person to be arrested, identified by some Respectable person of the locality, and prepare Arrest Memo and arrest him.
According to Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the said person should be produced before the Local Judicial Magistrate, within 24 hours, by the Local Police; where the Police Personnel from out-of-station will apply for Custody of the Undertrial/ Accused, and if granted; they can take him to their own Police Station, and thereafter produce him before their Judicial Magistrate.
The Judicial Magistrate at the residence of the accused have jurisdiction to grant Bail to the Accused, and in that case, the Accused should travel himself and appear before the Trial Court. This Bail is given only in a few cases. The Trial Court located at the place of Complainant also can give him Bail.
TRANSIT BAIL : PRACTICE:
What is above written is only Theory. In ordinary life, when a Police Person from a distant place takes an Accused/ Undertrial with him by Public Conveyance, the said Accused escapes and Policemen get punishment.
Thus, very rarely the Police arrest a person. What they do is to locate him, and take him into illegal custody. The Local Police of the place of residence of the Accused will give following endorsement upon the Warrant: “From reliable sources it is learnt that, the accused had gone to the place of the Complainant, traveling by Bus … or Train ….; and the said address is locked”.
This situation can never be restrained by Hon’ble Supreme Court or any other Court. In the year 2004, when the Alleged to be Forest Dacoit Late Mr. Veerappan was killed in an Encounter, his Honourable Mustache was cut down, prior to said Encounter. Encounter is conducted only when a person refuses to surrender, but tries to kill the Policemen who are arresting him. The factum of removal of Mustache gives a presumption that, he was already under Police Custody and also had been tortured, and Mustache was removed to insult and humiliate him. At that time, one Policeman told his own problem about “arrest” and “production” of persons; to say that, if an arrested accused escapes, “at my children’s food, there will be mud” (= the plate in which my children eats food, a hole will be created), thus it is the accused persons themselves who create situations for illegal arrests.
TRANSIT BAIL : SOLUTIONS:
The only solution to Transit Bail related problems is, never reject any Summons or Warrant issued by Courts located outside your place of residence. Normally at the first instance, the Police will be willing to accept a small amount of Bribe to say that Door is Locked, to return the Summons or Bailable Warrant, or even NBW. Immediately thereafter rush to the Court which want your presence and surrender; after that apply for Bail. Never default/ absent any date. Please remember, the Policemen who want to arrest you illegally, also have their own families and children; and in India there is no Dynasty; to the effect that; Policemen’s children will get the same Job in future. Under such circumstances, Local Police will give a false certificate of your absence; and illegally you will be controlled by bad words, only to protect the employment of the Policemen themselves.
SPECIMEN FORM FOR TRANSIT BAIL:
IN THE COURT OF Sh… METROPOLATIAN MAGISTRATE, DELHI
IN re:
Mr.Sss VS STATE
Arrested by P. S. ….., Delhi.
Under section 138 N I Act
Case no … of 2009
Honouring the Warrant issued by Hon’ble Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Kanpur.
APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF TRANSIST BAIL ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED
Mr. Sss, Resident of:- …
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:-
Sir,
(1) That applicant is peace loving citizen of India and resident of Delhi and has been detained / arrested by UP police and presently in custody of officials of PS…., Delhi in terms of NBW issued by Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur IN Case no. …./2009 under section 138 NI ACT in case title as aaa Bank Ltd. vs M/S sss Ltd.
(2) That offence of Dishonour of Cheque or Bouncing of Cheque under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act is a Bailable offence and the Applicant/ Accused has never been served with copy of complaint or any summons of the Hon’ble Trial Court at Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh.
(3) The Accused/ Applicant further submits that, he has no dealings with the complainant bank at Kanpur. Applicant is Director of M/S sss Ltd and not involved in offence in his individual capacity.
(4) That applicant is reputed man of status and undertakes to appear before the Hon’ble Trial Court at Kanpur as directed in the Warrant, and further regular Bail will be Prayed from the said Hon’ble Court. That applicant pray for grant of transits bail in present case and shall honor all condition imposed by this Hon’ble court.
PRAYER
In light of above disclosed fact it is most respectfully prayed that the Accused/ Under trial/ applicant be released on transits bail in above mentioned case the interest of justice
Delhi.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE ACCUSED/ APPLICANT SHALL FOR EVER PRAY DUTY BOUND.
Dated…. Applicant
through
Advocate
========= ==============
FORMAT OF ANTICIPATORY BAIL:-
IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE TIS HAZARI COURTS DELHI
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. OF 2009
IN THE MATTER OF:-
PETITIONERS
VERSUS