Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 14
IN THE COURT OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (EAST),
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CC NI ACT/__________/ 2024 IN THE MATTER OF:
SHRI SHAILENDER SHARMA ...COMPLAINANT
VERSUS SHRI VARUN TYAGI ...ACCUSED POLICE STATION: KRISHNA NAGAR
INDEX S.NO. PARTICULARS PAGE NOS. 1. MEMO OF PARTIES A 2. COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 138 OF NEGOTIABLE ACT AS AMENDED UPTO DATE. 3. LIST OF WITNESSES 4. LIST OF DOCUMENTS 5. CERTIFICATE UNDER SECTION 65B OF INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT 6. PRE-SUMMONING EVIDENCE BY WAY OF AFFIDAVIT 7. VAKALATNAMA
DELHI COMPLAINANT DATED THROUGH
MOHIT GUPTA ADVOCATE CHAMBER NO. F-720, KARKARDOOMA COURT, DELHI-110032. IN THE COURT OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (EAST), KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI CC NI ACT/__________/ 2024 IN THE MATTER OF:
SHRI SHAILENDER SHARMA ...COMPLAINANT
VERSUS SHRI VARUN TYAGI ...ACCUSED MEMO OF PARTIES
SHRI SHAILENDER SHARMA,
S/O. SHRI PREM BUTA SHARMA, R/O. 52-A, ANARKALI GARDEN, JAGAT PURI, STREET NO-7, DELHI-110051. MOBILE NUMBER :- 9990899288 …COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
SHRI VARUN TYAGI,
S/O LATE SHRI SUDHIR TYAGI R/O- IA-104, KDP GRAND SABANA, RAJ NAGAR EXTENSION, UTTAR PRADESH- 201017
ALSO AT :- B-41, BALMUKUND SOCIETY, RAJ NAGAR EXTENSION, UTTAR PRADESH- 201017 MOBILE NUMBER :- 1. 9582668598 2. 9990247469 3. 7827486255 …ACCUSED
DELHI COMPLAINANT DATED: THROUGH
MOHIT GUPTA ADVOCATE CHAMBER NO. F-720, KARKARDOOMA COURT, DELHI-110032. IN THE COURT OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (EAST), KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI CC NI ACT/__________/ 2024 IN THE MATTER OF:
SHRI SHAILENDER SHARMA ...COMPLAINANT
VERSUS SHRI VARUN TYAGI ...ACCUSED POLICE STATION: JAGAT PURI
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE NEGOTIABLE
INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881 AS AMENDED UPTO DATE.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. That the Complainant is a law abiding citizen and is residing at the
mentioned address peacefully.
2. That on 25.02.2024, the accused namely Shri Varun Tyagi had
approached the complainant personally and asked for a friendly loan of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) at Sector-4, Vaishali to purchase a shop named Nandini Tyre in MIG Flat situated at the Main Road, Sector 4 (Vaishali) with 25% equity and had promised to repay this friendly loan with 10% interest within three months. The accused also provided a Cheque and the same has been mentioned by the accused on the Affidavit and on 07.03.2024, the complainant had given Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) as a friendly loan to the accused through Real- Time Gross Settlement (RTGS).
3. That thereafter, the Complainant demanded to repay the friendly
loan amount from the accused multiple times within the stipulated time but he was not available over the calls and started avoiding the Complainant. Even after the stipulated time, the accused was making excuses by asking for some extra days every time to repay the friendly loan. And on 29.08.2024, the accused asked the complainant to deposit the Cheque No.000072 dated 01.06.2024 for Rs.5,50,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) drawn on HDFC Bank, Sector-1, Vaishali, Ghaziabad and also assured the Complainant that the said cheque would be encashed upon its presentation to the banker.
4. That on 30.08.2024, in order to discharge the liability towards the
complainant, the said cheque was deposited by the complainant for encashment into his bank namely Punjab National Bank, Krishna Nagar Branch, Delhi and upon the presentation the said cheque was returned unpaid/dishonoured with remarks “Funds Insufficient” vide returning memo dated 03.09.2024 and the information regarding the dishonour of the said cheque was received by the complainant on 03.09.2024.
5. That thereafter, the complainant contacted the accused and informed
the accused about the dishonour of the said cheque. However, the accused did not take the dishonour of the said cheque seriously and avoided the same.
6. That the complainant reminded the dishonour of the said cheque and requested the accused to repay the friendly loan amount. The complainant requested several times to repay the loan amount as the loan amount was his hard-earned money but the accused did not take the loan amount seriously and was/is avoiding the complainant in respect of the loan amount on one pretext or with other.
7. That the complainant sent a legal notice dated 26.09.2024 to the
accused through his counsel demanding to make payment of the said cheque of the amount within stipulated period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice.
8. That the Legal Notice dated 26.09.2024 was sent through Speed Post and delivered on 01.10.2024 through Speed Post. However, the accused failed to pay the said cheque amount to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice.
9. That the cause of action arose when on 30.08.2024, in order to
discharge the liability towards the complainant, the said cheque was deposited by the complainant for encashment into his bank namely Punjab National Bank, Krishna Nagar Branch, Delhi and upon the presentation the said cheque was returned unpaid/dishonoured with remarks “Funds Insufficient” vide returning memo dated 03.09.2024 and the information regarding the dishonour of the said cheque was received by the complainant on 03.09.2024. The cause of action arose when the complainant sent a legal notice dated 26.09.2024 to the accused through his counsel demanding to make payment of the said cheque of the amount within stipulated period of 15 days from the dated receipt of the notice. The cause of action further arose when the Legal Notice dated 26.09.2024 was sent through Speed Post and delivered on 01.10.2024 through Whatsapp. However, the accused failed to pay the said cheque amount to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice.
10.That the present complaint is based on the dishonour of the said
cheque which was issued in discharge of a lawful debt.
11.That the dishonour of the cheque clearly shows and establishes that the accused did not intend to honour the amount under the said cheque.
12.That the said cheque was presented for encashment in the
complainant bank namely PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, Krishna Nagar Branch, Delhi which is within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. Therefore, this Hon’ble Court has territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint.
13.That the present complaint is within the prescribed period of
limitation under Negotiable Instrument Act. PRAYER It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to try, summon and punish the accused for the offence under the provisions of Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 as amended upto date (Act No. 66 of 1988). Compensate the complainant for the loss and costs incurred by it and/or any other order may be passed which this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the complaint in favour of the complainant and against the accused.
DELHI COMPLAINANT DATED THROUGH
MOHIT GUPTA ADVOCATE CHAMBER NO. F-720, KARKARDOOMA COURT, DELHI-110032. IN THE COURT OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (EAST), KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI CC NI ACT/__________/ 2024 IN THE MATTER OF:
SHRI SHAILENDER SHARMA ...COMPLAINANT
VERSUS SHRI VARUN TYAGI ...ACCUSED
LIST OF WITNESSES
1. The Complainant himself.
2. The concerned official from the bank of the complainant.
3. The concerned official from the bank of the accused.
4. The concerned official/post master from the Postal Department.
5. Any other witness/s required by this Hon’ble Court which may deem fit.
DELHI COMPLAINANT DATED THROUGH
MOHIT GUPTA ADVOCATE CHAMBER NO. F-720, KARKARDOOMA COURT, DELHI-110032. IN THE COURT OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (EAST), KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI CC NI ACT/__________/ 2024 IN THE MATTER OF:
SHRI SHAILENDER SHARMA ...COMPLAINANT
VERSUS SHRI VARUN TYAGI ...ACCUSED
LIST OF DOCUMENTS S.No Particulars Page Nos. . 1. The Original Cheque bearing no. 000072 dated 01.06.2024 drawn on HDFC Bank, Sector-1, Vaishali Branch as Annexure “A” 2. The Returning memo dated 03.09.2024 showing remarks “Funds Insufficient” as Annexure “B”. 3. The Copy of Legal Notice dated 26.09.2024 sent to the accused as Annexure “C”. 4. The Original Postal Receipt dated 26.09.2024 as Annexure “D”. 5. The Computer Generated Tracking Report of Legal Notice as Annexure “E” 6. The Affidavit given by the Accused to the Complainant as Annexure “F”
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI CC NI ACT/__________/ 2024 IN THE MATTER OF:
SHRI SHAILENDER SHARMA ...COMPLAINANT
VERSUS SHRI VARUN TYAGI ...ACCUSED
PRESUMMONING EVIDENCE BY WAY OF AFFIDAVIT.
I, Shailender Sharma, S/o Late Shri Prem Buta Sharma aged about 59 years old, R/o. 52-A, Anarkali Garden, Jagat Puri, Delhi-110051 do hereby solemenly affirm and declare as under:
1. I say that I am the deponent/complainant in the above noted case and I
am well conversant with facts of the case and competent to swear this affidavit.
2. I say that on 25.02.2024, the accused namely Shri Varun Tyagi had approached the deponent personally and asked for a friendly loan of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) at Sector-4, Vaishali to purchase a shop named Nandini Tyre in MIG Flat situated at the Main Road, Sector 4 (Vaishali) with 25% equity and had promised to repay this friendly loan with 10% interest within three months. And on 07.03.2024, the deponent had borrowed Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) as a friendly loan to the accused through Real- Time Gross Settlement (RTGS).
3. I say that thereafter, the deponent demanded to repay the friendly loan amount from the accused multiple times within the stipulated time but he was not available over the calls and started avoiding the deponent. Even after the stipulated time, the accused was making excuses by asking for some extra days every time to repay the friendly loan. And on 29.08.2024, the accused asked the complainant to deposit the Cheque No.000072 dated 01.06.2024 for Rs.5,50,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) drawn on HDFC Bank, Sector-1, Vaishali, Ghaziabad to the deponent and also assured the deponent that the said cheque would be encashed upon its presentation to the banker The Original Cheque bearing no. 000072 is Ex-CW1/1.
4. I say that on 30.09.2024 in order to discharge the liability towards the
deponent, the said cheque was deposited by the deponent for encashment into his bank namely Punjab National Bank, Krishna Nagar Branch, Delhi and upon the presentation the said cheque was returned unpaid/dishonoured with remarks “Funds Insufficient” vide returning memo dated 03.09.2024 and the information regarding the dishonour of the said cheque was received by the deponent on 03.09.2024. The Original Returning Memo dated 03.09.2024 is Ex- CW1/2.
5. I say that thereafter, the deponent contacted the accused and informed the accused about the dishonour of the said cheque. However, the accused did not take the dishonour of the said cheque seriously and avoided the same.
6. I say that the deponent reminded the dishonour of the said cheque and requested the accused to repay the friendly loan amount. The deponent requested several times to repay the loan amount as the loan amount was his hard-earned money but the accused did not take the loan amount seriously and was/is avoiding the deponent in respect of the loan amount on one pretext or with other.
7. I say that the deponent sent a Legal Notice dated 26.09.2024 to the accused through his counsel demanding to make payment of the said cheque of the amount within stipulated period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The Copy of the Legal Notice dated 26.09.2024 is Ex-CW1/3.
8. I say that the Legal Notice dated 26.09.2024 was sent through Speed Post and delivered on 01.10.2024. However, the accused failed to pay the said cheque amount to the deponent within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The Original Postal Receipt dated 26.09.2024 is Ex-CW1/4 and Tracking Report is Ex-CW1/5.
9. I say that the Accused has given in writing on Affidavit that he will return the money with 10 % interest for 3 months which is Ex-CW1/6.
10.I say that the present complaint is based on the dishonour of the said cheque which was issued in discharge of a lawful debt.
11. I say that the dishonour of the cheque clearly shows and establishes that the accused did not intend to honour the amount under the said cheque.
12. I say that the deponent has signed the present complaint which is exhibited CW1/A and have signed at point “A” and “B” . The complaint is true and correct and within limitation.
13. I say that the deponent has not filed any other or similar complaint in respect of the same in any court of law.
DEPONENT VERIFICATION: Verified at Delhi on this ___day of_____2024 that the contents of this affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge & belief and nothing has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT IN THE COURT OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (EAST), KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI CC NI ACT/__________/ 2024 IN THE MATTER OF:
SHRI SHAILENDER SHARMA ...COMPLAINANT
VERSUS SHRI VARUN TYAGI ...ACCUSED
CERTIFICATE UNDER SECTION 65-B OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE
ACT, 1872.
It is certified that the attached Speed Post Tracking Report dated 01.10.2024 is a true extract in printed form created in the usual and ordinary course of business. It is further certified 1. That the Access to the Computer System and the data stored thereon is controlled by predefined user permissions exercised through individual and unique user-id and associates passwords. 2. That physical access to the computer/server room is prevented by locking the server room and the branch after office hours. Detection of any authorized changes in the date after day-end and before day-begin activity is carried through procedures which are built into the application program. Unauthorized changes in the date during regular working hours are prevented/detected through verification of outputs with authorized inputs. 3. That in case of system failure, the date is retrieved from the back-up kept on tape/floppy/cartridge/hard disk, which is under the control of the authorized personnel of the bank; 4. That back-up is verified by the system during the process of transfer of date to back-up media. 5. That physical and logical labels identify the date storage devices; 6. That back-up devices and media are kept under lock and key which are in the custody of the authorized personnel of the bank; and 7. That physical and logical access controls are in place as safeguards against tampering of the systems. It is further certified that to the best of our knowledge and belief, the Computer System that generated and stored this information operated properly at the time of such generation/storage on data and printout represents correctly the relevant date. COMPLAINANT
