BEFORE THE HON’BLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE
COURT, KUNNAMANGALAM
CC. /2016
Sreekumar Kormath, aged 52 years
S/o. Late Edachery Kannapoduval,
‘Meenaksheeyam’, KR Panicker Road,
Govindapuram.P.O, Kozhikode
Rep. by Power of Attorney Holder
Mr. Sumesan.K, Aged 44 years, Complainant
S/o. Madhavan, Kollarukandy,
Kacheri amsom desom
P.O. Karaparamba, Kozhikode
(Nadakkavu Police Station Limit)
Jayarajan.K, aged years,
S/o. P.C. Raman, Sarojam Nivas, Accused
Kandoth.P.O, Payyannur (via)
Kannur- 670 307
(Payyannur Police Station Limit)
Complaint filed by the complainant U/s. 190 (1) Cr.P.C and U/s.
142 of NI Act.
1. The complainant is currently working at Dubai - UAE and the
complaint is filed by his Power of Attorney Holder Mr. Sumesan.K. He is
personally aware of the transactions between the complainant and
accused and is personally aware of the circumstances by which the
cheque was executed and delivered to the complainant by the accused
and he witnessed the execution of the cheque by the accused. All
notices and other processes from this Hon’ble Court may be served to
the power of attorney Holder Mr. Sumesan.K, whose address is given
above.
2. The address from where the accused is residing is given
above and all summons and other process from this Hon’ble Court may
be served on him through Payyannur Police Station.
3. The accused and complainant were known to each other for
quite a long time. Then during the month of December 2013, the
accused requested for a loan of Rs. 60 lakhs from the complainant for
the purchase of a property by him. Since they were known to each
other pretty well, the complainant paid Rs. 40 lakhs on 02.01.2014 and
Rs. 20 lakhs on 13.04.2015 through bank. When it was demanded
back, the accused was not in a position to pay back the amount and so
he offered half share in the property to the complaint .It was accepted
by the complainant.But he did not do anything to get it registered and
subsequently,the complainant came to know that the accused is not
willing to hand over half of the share in the property.Then in the month
of May 2016,the complainant demanded back the money from the
accused.Then an agreement was executed between the complainant
and accused on 21.08.2016. Meanwhile an amount of Rs.2,89,973 was
spent by the accused for construction of a wall at the property of the
complainant and this amount was deducted from the total amount.And
an amount of Rs.10,000 was given by the accused to the complainant
at the time of execution of the agreement on 21.08.2016 Hence a
total sum of Rs.2,999,73was deducted from the total amount as the
amount received by the complainant and then the balance amount was
Rs. 57,10,027/-. The accused, through this agreement acknowledged
50% share of the complainant in the property purchased by the
accused in Resurvey 164/1A and 164/4 in Vellur amsom desom (8.50 +
2.43 Ares) andfurther, in this agreement the accused agreed to repay
the balance amount to the complainant through cheque No. 001728
dated 31.10.2016 drawn at Vellur Bank, Kandoth, Kannur. It is made
clear in the agreement that the share of the complainant in the
property will be given back to the accused on realization of the cheque
amount. This was made clear in the agreement and the cheque was
given to the complainant by the accused on 21.08.2016 and the
agreement also was executed on the same day. The cheque was
signed, executed and issued by the accused to the complainant on
21.08.2016 in the presence of the Power of attorney holder who filed
this complaint.
4. At the time of issuance of the cheque the accused made the
complainant to believe that, on presentation of the cheque, the
complainant will get the amount born by the cheque. Then, believing
the words of the accused on 02.11.2016, the complainant presented
the above stated cheque bearing No. 001728 dated 31.10.2016 for Rs.
57,00,027/- for encashment through the account of the complainant
maintained at the Dhanalakshmi Bank, MIMS Branch, Kozhikode. But it
was returned dishonoured on 07.11.2016 with an endorsement
‘Insufficient Funds’. The cheque was returned dishonoured due to the
lack of sufficient funds in the account of the accused. Due to this willful
act of the accused, the complainant had suffered much financial loss
and the accused had unlawful gain and hence the act of the accused
amounts to clear cheating and is a criminal offence. The complainant
received the dishonour memo of his bank along with the dishonoured
cheque on 07.11.2016.
5. Since the dishonour of cheque is an offence under the
Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant had issued statutory
notice dated 17.11.2016 through his lawyer to the accused
demanding the payment of the cheque amount within 15 days of the
receipt of the notice. The accused received the notice on 21.11.2016.
But he did not pay the amount nor sent any reply hence this complaint
is filed.
6. After issuing cheque for discharging the liability, the
accused had failed to make sufficient arrangements for the collection
of the cheque when presented for collection and knowingly refused to
pay the amount covered by the cheque. By the above mentioned
action and omission, the accused has committed an offence punishable
u/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
7. The complainant had complied with all the formalities
necessary for filing a complaint under the provisions of the NI Act. The
complainant is very much aggrieved by the offence committed by the
accused. The complainant has got witnesses and documents to prove
the case of the complainant and the list of witnesses and documents
are produced along with this complaint.
8. The cheque issued by the accused were presented to the
bank account of the complainant which is maintained at the
Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd, MIMS Branch, Kozhikode which is within the
limits of Medical College Police Station and hence as per Sec. 142 (2)
of amended Negotiable Instruments Act, this Hon’ble Court is having
jurisdiction to try the above case.
It is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be
pleased to receive the complaint on file, issue process to the accused,
procure his presence before the court, punish him for the offence
committed by him and also grant adequate compensation to the
complainant.
Dated this the 14 th Day of December
2016
Complainant
List of Witness
1. Branch Manager
Vellur Service Co-operative Bank,
Vellur.P.O, Payyannur, Kannur.
2. Branch Manager
Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd,
MIMS Branch, Kozhikode.
Dated this the 14th Day of December
2016
Complainant
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
No Date Description
Remarks
1 .12.16 Notarised copy of Power of attorney executed
by the complainant infavour of Mr. Sumesan.K
(Original)
2. 21.08.16 Agreement executed by the complainant and
Accused (Original)
3. 31.10.16 Cheque No. 001728 (Original)
4 07.11.16Return Memo issued by Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd,
MIMS Branch, Kozhikode (Original)
5. 17.11.16 Office copy of the lawyer notices sent by the
counsel of the complainant (Original)
6. 18.11.16 Postal receipt
7. 21.11.16 Acknowledgment Card.
Dated this the 14 th Day of December
2016
Advocate
