IN THE COURT OF CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
NORTH-WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
COMPLAINT NO.______
POLICE STATION:
IN RE:
AJAY KUMAR VS SHAHRUKH
INDEX
S NO. PARTICULARS PAGE NOS.
1. Memo of parties
2. Complaint u/s 138 OF N.I. Act, 1881
3. Affidavit in support
4. List of document along with
documents
5. List of Witnesses
6. Pre summoning evidence of the
complainant
7. Vakalatnama
8. Extra copy of the complaint
COMPLAINANT
through
SACHIN KUMAR
ADVOCATE
CH. 369 CIVIL SIDE,
TIS HAZARI COURTS
Delhi DELHI
Dated: /10/2019
IN THE COURT OF CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
NORTH-WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
COMPLAINT NO.______
POLICE STATION:
IN RE:
AJAY KUMAR VS SHAHRUKH
MEMO OF PARTIES
AJAY KUMAR
PROPRIETOR
M/s GAURA CONSTRUCTIONS,
D-2/134, SECTOR 20,
ROHINI, DELHI-110086 … COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
SHAHRUKH
E-213, PHASE II
GALI NO. 9,
INDER ENCLAVE,
DELHI- 110086 …. ACCUSED
COMPLAINANT
through
SACHIN KUMAR
ADVOCATE
CH. 369 CIVIL SIDE
TIS HAZARI COURTS
DELHI
Dated: /10/2019
IN THE COURT OF CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
NORTH-WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
COMPLAINT NO.______
POLICE STATION:
IN RE:
AJAY KUMAR VS SHAHRUKH
P.S.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 138 OF NEGOTIABLE
INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881
Sir,
The complainant above named most respectfully
submits as under:
1. That the complainant is a law abiding citizen, and is a
sole proprietor of M/s Gaura Constructions, who deals
with the letting of the JCB machines.
2. That the accused, along with Sh. Yashin & Sh. GulBahar
representing themselves to be partners, approached the
complainant for the letting of the JCB to them and in
consequence of which JCB machine bearing no. HR72
D9060 was let on monthly rental of Rs. 85,000 per
month (Rs. 2800 per day approx.) by the complainant.
3. That the accused along with his associates used the JCB
machine, (sometimes, for days or weeks) on various
occasions in accordance to the monthly rent agreed
upon as and when their necessity to use the JCB
machine arises, without discharging their rental liability
of about 67 days, amounting to Rs. 1,87,600/- (@ Rs.
2800 per day) towards the complainant.
4. That only after the persistent requests of the
complainant to the accused to discharge their
outstanding liability, the accused, in partial discharge of
his whole liability, issued a cheque bearing no. 392452
dated 25/05/2019 drawn on Yes Bank, Ground Floor,
bearing no. 149, ward no. 12, Mohalla Ramnagar,
Hapur Road, Distt. Bulandshehr, Gulaothi-245408
amounting to Rs. 80,000/- to the complainant.
5. That the said cheque when presented for encashment
by the complainant through his banker, State Bank of
India, Kanjhawala Road, PoothKalan, New Delhi on
19/07/2019 was returned dishonoured along with the
cheque return memo dated 20/07/2019 on account of
‘Drawers signature differs’, regarding which the
complainant got the information on 29/07/2019.
6. That on 23/08/2019, the complainant sent a legal notice
to the accused intimating him about the dishonour of
his cheque and demanding him to pay the amount of
the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the notice,
which was got received by the accused on 28/08/2019
(as per tracking report) but the accused neither
complied with the notice nor sent any reply to the
same.
7. That the said cheque was against valuable consideration
and dishonour of the same has resulted into wrongful
gain to the accused and wrongful loss to the
complainant.
8. That, even otherwise, as the cheque was returned
dishonoured and the accused has failed to make the
payment within the stipulated period, the cause of
action has arisen for filing the complaint under Sec. 138
of the NI Act, 1881, which is being filed within limitation
as per Sec. 142 of the NI Act, 1881.
9. That this Hon’ble court has the jurisdiction to entertain
and try the present complaint as the cause of action
arose within jurisdiction of Hon’ble court.
PRAYER
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this
Hon’ble court may be pleased to summon the accused
u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 as
amended up to-date and the accused be tried and
punished in accordance with law for the aforesaid
offence committed by him.
COMPLAINANT
through
SACHIN KUMAR
ADVOCATE
CH. 369 CIVIL SIDE
TIS HAZARI COURTS
DELHI
IN THE COURT OF CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
NORTH-WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
COMPLAINT NO.______
POLICE STATION:
IN RE:
AJAY KUMAR VS SHAHRUKH
AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit of Sh. Ajay Kumar, Proprietor, M/s Gaura
Constructions, D-2/134, Sector 20, Rohini, Delhi-110086.
The deponent does hereby solemnly affirm and declare as
under:-
1. That the accompanying complaint u/s 138, Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 has been drafted by the counsel as
per my instructions and statement of facts made therein
is correct to my knowledge and statement of law made
therein is correct as per information received and
believed to be correct.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:-
Verified at Delhi on this ____ day of October, 2019 that
the contents of above affidavit are correct and true to my
knowledge and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
IN THE COURT OF CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
NORTH-WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
COMPLAINT NO.______
POLICE STATION:
IN RE:
AJAY KUMAR VS SHAHRUKH
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
1. Original cheque dated 25/05/2019 for a sum of Rs.
80,000/-
2. Original cheque return memo dated 20/07/2019
3. Copy of legal notice dated 23/08/2019.
4. Original postal receipt of the said notice.
5. Tracking report of the postal receipt/Proof of delivery.
COMPLAINANT
through
SACHIN KUMAR
ADVOCATE
CH. 369 CIVIL SIDE
TIS HAZARI COURTS
DELHI
Dated: /10/2019
IN THE COURT OF CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
NORTH-WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
COMPLAINT NO.______
POLICE STATION:
IN RE:
AJAY KUMAR VS SHAHRUKH
LIST OF WITNESSES
1. Complainant
2. Bank official of the complainant
3. Bank official of the accused
4. Concerned official from the postal department
5. Any other witnesses, with the leave of this Hon’ble court
COMPLAINANT
through
SACHIN KUMAR
ADVOCATE
CH. 369 CIVIL SIDE
TIS HAZARI COURTS
DELHI
Dated: /10/2019
IN THE COURT OF CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
NORTH-WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
COMPLAINT NO.______
POLICE STATION:
IN RE:
AJAY KUMAR VS SHAHRUKH
PRE-SUMMONING EVIDENCE OF THE COMPLAINANT CW-1
Affidavit of Sh. Ajay Kumar, Proprietor, M/s Gaura
Constructions, D-2/134, Sector 20, Rohini, Delhi-110086.
The deponent does hereby solemnly affirm and declare as
under:-
1. That the accused, along with Sh. Yashin & Sh. GulBahar
representing themselves to be partners, approached the
deponent for the letting of the JCB to them and in
consequence of which JCB machine bearing no. HR72
D9060 was let on monthly rental of Rs. 85,000 per month
(Rs. 2800 per day approx.) by the deponent.
2. That accused along with his associates used the JCB
machine, (sometimes, for days or weeks) on various
occasions in accordance to the monthly rent agreed upon
as and when their necessity to use the JCB machine
arises, without discharging their rental liability of about
67 days, amounting to Rs. 1,87,600/- (@ Rs. 2800 per
day) towards the deponent.
3. That the accused, in partial discharge of his whole
liability, issued a cheque bearing no. 392452 dated
25/05/2019 drawn on Yes Bank, Ground Floor, bearing
no. 149, ward no. 12, Mohalla Ramnagar, Hapur Road,
Distt. Bulandshehr, Gulaothi-245408 amounting to Rs.
80,000/- to the deponent.
4. That the said cheque when presented for encashment by
the deponent through his banker, State Bank of India,
Kanjhawala Road, Pooth Kalan, New Delhi on 19/07/2019
was returned dishonoured along with the cheque return
memo dated 20/07/2019 on account of ‘Drawers
signature differs’, regarding which the deponent got the
information on 29/07/2019.
5. That on 23/08/2019, the deponent sent a legal notice to
the accused intimating him about the dishonour of his
cheque and demanding him to pay the amount of the
cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the notice, which
was got received by the accused on 28/08/2019 (as per
tracking report) but the accused neither complied with
the notice nor sent any reply to the same.
6. That the said cheque was against valuable consideration
and dishonour of the same has resulted into wrongful
gain to the accused and wrongful loss to the deponent.
7. That the accused be summoned, tried and prosecuted for
the offence committed under section 138, Negotiable
Instrument Act 1881.
8. CHEQUE DATED 25/05/2019 FOR RS. 80,000/- ISSUED BY
THE ACCUSED IS EXHIBITED AS CW1/1
CHEQUE RETURN MEMO DATED 20/07/2019 IS EXHIBITED
AS CW1/2
LEGAL NOTICE DATED 23/08/2019 SENT TO THE ACCUSED
IS EXHIBITED AS CW1/3.
POSTAL RECEIPTS OF THE SAME IS EXHIBITED AS CW1/4.
TRACKING REPORT OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT/PROOF OF
DELIVERY IS EXHIBITED AS CW1/5.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:-
Verified at Delhi on this ____ day of October, 2019 that
the contents of above affidavit are correct and true to my
knowledge and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
