SAMPLE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

KAKINADA
Crl.M.P. /2010 In Cr.No.81/2010 of Kirlampudi P.S.
Between:
1. Nakka. Rama Krishna, s/o Apparao, 22 years, Coolie, Resident of S.
Thimmapuram, Kirlampudi Mandal.
2. Nakka. Marinamma, w/o Apparao, 40 years, House Wife, Resident of S.
Thimmapuram, Kirlampudi Mandal.
3. Nakka. Apparao, s/o Veerayya, 50 years, Coolie, Resident of S.
Thimmapuram, Kirlampudi Mandal.
…Petitioners/Accused 1 to 3
And
State (S.H.O. Kirlampudi P.S) Rep. by Additional P.P
…Respondent/Complainant
PETITION FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3 UNDER
SECTION 438 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE:
The Petitioners herein are alleged to be Accused 1 to 3 in the above crime. The
Petitioners are alleged to have committed an offence u/s 354, 324 r/w 34 of IPC. The said
offences are cognizable offences and they are exclusively triable by Asst. Sessions Judge. The
said offences are not punishable either with life imprisonment or death sentence.
The Petitioners respectfully submit that they are law abiding citizens and that they have
not committed any offence much less the alleged offence u/s 354, 324 r/w 34 of IPC at any point
of time. The Petitioners submit that defacto Complainant in the above crime has got filed the
above complaint by suppressing necessary and material information and also by mis-representing
the fact.
The Petitioners respectfully submit that originally it is the defacto Complainant who had
raise the dispute between the family of the defacto Complainant and the petitioners herein. The
Petitioners submit that on 14-10-2007 when the 1st Petitioner was standing near the pan shop his
junior father-in-law namely Jalasutrapu Krishna abused him and pounced upon him. On
returning to home the 1st Petitioner informed to the Petitioners 2 and 3 about the same. All the
petitioners have complained the same to their village president Nagadora and he promised to call
both parties on the next day and resolve the issue.
The Petitioners further submits on 15-7-2010 morning about at 6 a.m while 2nd Petitioner
was drawing water from the well Jalasutrapu Seethamma and another have come from the behind
of the 2nd Petitioner and beat the 2nd Petitioner on her face later other family members of
Seethamma have joined hands and beat the 2 nd Petitioner indiscriminately. On that the 2 nd
Petitioner has lodged a complaint before the Kirlampudi P.S which is registered as
Cr.No:82/2010 u/s 354, 324 r/w 34 of IPC.
The Petitioners submit the defacto Complainant herein feeling guilty got filed the above
complaint with the Respondent on coming to know about the complaint given by the 2 nd
Petitioner as a counter blast. The contents of the report given by the defacto Complainant clearly
shows that it is a preplanned one and that too with unexplained delay in filing the complaint
which clearly goes to show that the said complaint is a false one.
 The Petitioners respectfully submit that they are permanent residents of S.Thimmapuram
Village and they have got permanent abode there. The Petitioners also submits that their family
members are dependent on them. The Petitioners also submit that they would abide with the
conditions that may be imposed by the Hon'ble Court and would appear before the Hon'ble Court
as and when directed without fail. The Petitioners submit that they have got sufficient sureties
to the satisfaction of this Hon'ble Court.
The Petitioners respectfully submit that though they are not at fault the Respondent is
frequently calling upon them to appear before them or to face consequences. The Petitioners
apprehend danger in the hands of the Respondent to their life and limb hence they are advised to
file this petition. The Petitioners submit that except filing this petition they have not filed any
other petition before any other Court and none are pending.
In the circumstances stated above the Petitioners pray that the Hon'ble Court may be
pleased to grant anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest by the Respondent on such terms and
conditions as the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Otherwise
the Petitioners will be subjected to great loss.

Kakinada Be pleased to consider,

Dt:29-07-2010
Advocate for Petitioners/Accused
 Application under Section 436 of Cr PC for the grant of Bail

IN THE COURT OF THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

GUWAHATI HIGH COURTS

Petitioner :

Shri Bharat Gogoi

Versus

Respondents :
1. The State of Assam,
through the Principal Secretary,
Department of Home, Govt. of Assam
Dispur, Assam

2. The Superintendent of Police,

Guwahati City, District Kamrup, Assam

3. The Station House Officer,

Police Station, Gita Nagar, Guwahati
District Kamrup, Assam

4. The Senior Superintendent of Police,

District Kamrup, Assam

FIR No. : 227/A Dated 12/06/2012 Police Station: Gita Nagar

Offence Under Section: 378 & 379 of IPC

Application under Section 436 of Cr PC for the grant of Bail

Respectfully Sheweth:
1. That the applicant has been involved in a false and frivolous case by one Shri Umesh
Boro, by lodging a complaint with the Gita Nagar Police Station, Guwahati on
12/06/2012 for offence under sections 378 & 379 of the IPC. The applicant/accused has
been arrested by the Police of Police Gita Nagar Police Station subsequent to the above
complaint.

2. That it is submitted that the allegations made against the applicant/accused are false,
frivolous and vexatious and lack in the material substance. The applicant belongs to a
 very reputed family in his locality. The allegations are that the applicant forced open the
shop of Sri Umesh Boro on 11/06/2012 at about 11-30p.m. by breaking door lock and has
stolen goods worth about Rs. 35,000.00.

3. That the applicant/accused is a permanent resident of Gita Nagar and earning livelihood by
small business. The applicant has his old parents dependent upon him and the applicant is the
only bread earner for the family.

4. That the applicant/accused is innocent and has been involved falsely due to the personal
grudge to settle the score against the applicant/accused Shri Bharat Gogoi OR due to enmity and
family feud. It is submitted that the complainant is an influential and high-handed person in the
locality.

5. That by getting the applicant/accused arrested the applicant has been deprived of his valuable
fundamental right of liberty by abuse of powers and process of law by the complainant.

6. That the applicant is willing to furnish surety and bail bonds to the satisfaction of this learned
court in case he is ordered to be released on bail. The applicant is also willing to join the
investigations and bind himself by the terms and conditions laid down by the law or by this
Hon'ble court. It is further submitted that the applicant is not at all required for the investigations.
However, if the applicant is required for investigation, the applicant/accused undertakes to be
present as and when required in accordance with the law.

7. That neither any recovery is to be effected from the applicant nor the applicant is in a position
to temper with the prosecution evidence. The applicant will associate with the investigation
whenever required to do so.

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that:-

(a) That the applicant may be ordered to be released on bail and this application for bail may
kindly be allowed;

(b) That till the decision of this application interim bail may be granted to the applicant; Shri
Bharat Gogoi

(c) That the directions may be issued to the police to get the applicant/accused medically
examined immediately;

(d) Such other orders be also passed in favour of the applicant as deemed fit and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.

Guwahati Applicant
22/06/2013

Through,

Advocate

Note:-

1. This application is filed through the father and next friend of the applicant/accused, Shri
Bharat Gogoi . It is, therefore, prayed that the application of the applicant/accused may kindly
be allowed and the applicant/accused may kindly be released on interim bail in the interest of
Justice.

2. That the applicant/accused is under police custody. Therefore, the requirement of affidavit and
signature may kindly be dispensed with.

Guwahati Applicant

22/06/2013

Through,

Advocate
 IN THE COURT OF THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
GUWAHATI HIGH COURTS

Petitioner :

Shri Bharat Gogoi

Versus

Respondents :
1. The State of Assam,
through the Principal Secretary,
Department of Home, Govt. of Assam
Dispur, Assam

2. The Superintendent of Police,

Guwahati City, District Kamrup, Assam

3. The Station House Officer,

Police Station, Gita Nagar, Guwahati
District Kamrup, Assam

4. The Senior Superintendent of Police,

District Kamrup, Assam

Affidavit in support of the application under Section 436 of CrPC

I, Shri Bharat Gogoi , do hereby solemnly affirms and declare as under:-

1. That the accompanying application under section 436 CrPC has been drafted at my instance
and under my instructions.

2. That the contents of paras 1 to 7 are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

3. That I further solemnly affirm and declare that this affidavit of mine is correct and true, no
part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therein.

Affirmed here at Guwahati on 22/06/2013

Deponent
 CHEQUE DIOSHONOUR NOTICE
Under SECTION 138 of NI Act
/REGISTERED AD/
Advocate :

Dhritikunj, CR Park, New-Delhi

Ref: LN/2013/44 Dated: 22/10/2013

To:

M/s Aditya Traders,

D-98, Kamala Nagar,
New Delhi -110009

Legal Notice

Sir,

Under instructions from my client Shri. Rajiv Singla, Director, M/S Jay Motors, New Delhi, I
am serving you with the following legal notice in unequivocal terms:-
1. That my above said client is the Director of M/S Jay Motors, C-112, Kamala Nagar New Delhi
2. That you had given cheque bearing No. 2267822 of Bank of Baroda dated 28/12/2010 for Rs.
3,44,582.00 (Rupees Three lakh Forty four thousand Five hundred Eighty two)only knowing
fully well that when the cheque will be presented in the bank you will not have sufficient amount
in your account.
3. That my above said client when presented the above said cheque with his banker The State
Bank of India, the same were returned to him with the endorsement that you do not have
sufficient amount in your account and as such the cheque have been dishonoured.

4. That you had given the aforesaid cheque knowing fully well with the ulterior motive to cheat
my abovesaid client and as thus you have also made yourself liable for the commission of
offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code also for which my above said client reserve his
right to lodge F. I. R. against you.
5. That the above cheque dated 28/12/2010 was presented by my above said client on
22/01/2011 and he received the same vide dishonour of cheque memo on _____ and the present
notice is given to you within stipulated period of 15 days from the receipt of the aforesaid
dishonoured cheque memo.
6. That you are hereby requested to make the payment of Rs. 3,44,582.00 (Rupees Three lakh
Forty four thousand Five hundred Eighty two)only , within period of 30 days from the receipt
of this notice failing which my client shall be forced to launch civil as well as criminal
proceeding in the competent court of law at your cost and risk. Note that c.c. is retained.
Yours sincerely,
CR Park, New Delhi

22/10/2013
 IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI

(Original Criminal Jurisdiction)

Writ Petition No 112 of 20 13

Shri Rocky Yadav,

Son of Shri Bishnu Yadav.,

Resident of Indira Nagar, New Delhi Petitioner;

Versus

1. Additional Secretary,

Ministry of Finance,

Government of India

2. The Superintendent,

Tihar Jail, New Delhi

3. The State of Delhi Respondents.

PETITION FOR THE ISSUE OF WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

To

The Hon’ble the Chief Justice and his companion Judges of the Court aforesaid.

The humble petition of the above named Petitioner most respectfully sheweth:

1. That the petitioner is a resident of Indira Nagar, New Delhi and he was living peacefully at his

residence at the place aforesaid.

2. That on 10/07/2013 Respondent No. 1 made an order under Section 3 of the Conservation of

Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 by which he directed that

the Petitioner shall be arrested and detained for a period of three months. A copy of the order is
annexed herewith as Annexure ‘‘A’’.

3. That the Petitioner was arrested the same day and was detained in Tihar Jail. The grounds of

detention were not supplied to the petitioner on that day. The grounds were actually supplied on

22/07/2013. A copy of the grounds supplied is annexed herewith as Annexure ‘‘B’’.

4. That on 24/08/2013. the Petitioner submitted a representation against his detention through

Respondent No. 2 but the same was considered by the Advisory Board after one month and was

rejected on 25/09/2013.

5. That the grounds of detention supplied to the Petitioner were in English which language the

Petitioner does not know.

6. That the orders of detention of the Petitioner are illegal, improper and without jurisdiction on

the following:

GROUNDS

1. Because the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities

Act, 1974, is unconstitutional and void as it is beyond the legislative competence of

Parliament.

2. Because the order has been passed by an officer not duly authorised.

3. Because the grounds were supplied after undue delay.

4. Because the grounds are in English which language the Petitioner does not know and this

has prevented him from making an effective representation.

5. Because the grounds are irrelevant to the object of the Act.

6. Because the grounds are vague.

7. Because there was undue delay in the disposal of the representation submitted by the

petitioner.
Wherefore it is respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ in the

nature of Habeas Corpus to the opposite parties quashing the order of detention and directing that

the Petitioner be set at liberty forthwith.

Date 12/11/2013 Advocate for the Petitioner.

 IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (JD) AND JMFC
AT TUMKUR

CMIS: /2011

PETITIONER VS RESPONDENT
PUSHPALATHA.S GURUSWAMY.S
D/O SHANTHAPPA S/O MAVISIDDAIAH
AGED 19 YEARS AGED 26 YEARS
CASTE BY LINGAYATH CASTE BY SCHEDULE CASTE
C/O RAMANNA’S HOUSE KARIYANA KATTE
KUNDUR VILLAGE ALUR POST
TUMKUR TALUK CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK
& DISTRICT

PETITION UNDER SECTION 125 (1) OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE:-

1. The address of parties for service of process are as stated above the addresses are true
and correct.

2. The petitioner humbly submits that ,the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of
respondent, the marriage is solemnized before Shri Male Mahadeshwara Swami Kshethra
on 12-08-2010 in the Samuhika Vivaha Samarambha and the same is registered in Sub-
Registrar office of Chamarajanagar vide marriage number CRJ- HM15-2010-11 dated
16-09-2010 in CD number CRJM1. The letter of Temple and Marriage registration
certificate is produced as Annexure P1 & P2 for kind perusal of the Hon’ble court.

3. The Petitioner humbly submits that, the marriage between them is love marriage against
the wishes of parents.

4. The petitioner humbly submits that, the respondent is working in private factory and
earning Rs 8000-00 as salary till recently.

5. The petitioner humbly submits that , the petitioner and respondent lived happily till end
of April 2011 for about eight months and all of a sudden respondent started illtreating this
petitioner by way of suspicion and by way of filthy abuse and by way of desperation.

6. The petitioner humbly submits that , the respondent abused petitioner by scolding
repeatedly that he had a bright future and could have got well settled by taking dowry and
I spoiled his prosperous life through love marriage.

7. The petitioner humbly submits that , due such desperation and greed of having more
money the respondent starved this petitioner by rejecting to provide food and grains to
home in the end of the month of April 2011. The petitioner without bearing such
starvation returned to her mother with the help of some neighbours.
8. The petitioner humbly submits that , the neighbours are also threatened by the respondent
for having helped this petitioner to return to her native.

9. The petitioner humbly submits that , the respondent is repeatedly threatening this
petitioner to give divorce and harassing with phone calls to file false atrocity cases. The
petitioner is beinbg in such way neglected by the respondent without any sufficient cause
for the same hence this petition to get maintenance.

10. The petitioner humbly submits that , The petitioner is last residing within the Jurisdiction
of this court in the house of her parents and hence the petition is filed before this court.

11. The petitioner humbly submits that , the petitioner having no independent work and
having low level education is not finding any suitable job is being starved and not having
life equal to that of respondent.

12. The petitioner humbly submits that , the respondent is having independent job and also
promised to look after this petitioner initially have driven back from his promise.
Respondent is also having share in the Joint family lands and rich enough having average
monthly income of Rs 20,000-00 from all sources.

13. The petitioner humbly submits that , the respondent is temporarily depending upon
parents of her and parents are poor enough and unable to maintain themselves and hence
this petitioner is more burden to her parents.

14. The petitioner humbly submits that , the marriage between respondent and this petitioner
is a love marriage and parents are having their own grievances with the marriage and
hence this petitioner is under “thrishanku sthithi” in life hence this petition for
maintenance.

15. The petitioner humbly submits that , she require Minimum Rs 10,000-00 for her
sustainable livelihood including separate residence charges, food, clothing and other
necessities of life as equal to that of respondents status. The petitioner further submit,
that, they have not filed any other Suit, Petition or application, initiating any other
proceedings before any Court or Authority in respect of the subject matter against the
respondent seeking the same relief as sought in this Petition. The Petitioner submit,
that, she have no other alternative, effective or adequate remedy otherwise than by means
of filing this petition. No proceedings is pending before any other Court on same cause
of action.
Wherefore this petitioner humbly prays this Hon’ble court to allow the petition by directing
respondent to pay monthly maintenance of Rs 10,000-00 to this petitioner from the date of
petition to the date of realization in the ends of Justice.

Date:-
Place:- Tumkur PETITIONER

ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER

VERIFICATION

I Pushpalatha.S the petitioner in the above petition do hereby solemnly affirm and verify that the
facts stated in the above petition is true and correct and is explained by my advocate in kannada
and I only stated the facts to my advocate and I do affirm and sign as below.

Date:-
Place:- Tumkur PETITIONER
 IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (JD) AND JMFC
AT TUMKUR
IA : 1/2011
IN
CMIS: /2011

PETITIONER /APPLICANT VS RESPONDENT/OPPONENT

PUSHPALATHA.S GURUSWAMY.S

INTERIM EXPARTE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 125 (2) OF CRIMINAL

PROCEDURE CODE:-

For the reasons sworned and stated herein below, I the applicant /petitioner herin above named
humbly prays this Hon’ble court to make exparte interim order by ordering respondent to pay
forthwith Rs 5000-00 as interim maintenance in favour of this applicant from the date of this
petition until further orders in the ends of justice.

Reasons necessitating the application

1. This applicant/petitioner is the legally wedded wife of respondent, the marriage is

solemnized before Shri Male Mahadeshwara Swami Kshethra on 12-08-2010 in the
Samuhika Vivaha Samarambha and the same is registered in Sub-Registrar office of
Chamarajanagar vide marriage number CRJ- HM15-2010-11 dated 16-09-2010 in CD
number CRJM1. The letter of Temple and Marriage registration certificate is produced as
Annexure P1 & P2 for kind perusal of the Hon’ble court.

2. The Petitioner humbly submits that, the marriage between them is love marriage against
the wishes of parents, the respondent is working in private factory and earning Rs 8000-
00 as salary till recently. The petitioner and respondent lived happily till end of April
2011 for about eight months and all of a sudden respondent started ill-treating this
petitioner by way of suspicion and by way of filthy abuse and by way of desperation. The
respondent abused petitioner by scolding repeatedly that he had a bright future and could
have got well settled by taking dowry and I spoiled his prosperous life through love
marriage. Due to such desperation and greed of having more money the respondent
starved this petitioner by rejecting to provide food and grains to home in the end of the
month of April 2011. The petitioner without bearing such starvation returned to her
mother with the help of some neighbours. The neighbours are also threatened by the
respondent for having helped this petitioner to return to her native.

3. The petitioner humbly submits that , the respondent is repeatedly threatening this
petitioner to give divorce and harassing with phone calls to file false atrocity cases. The
petitioner is beinbg in such way neglected by the respondent without any sufficient cause
for the same hence this petition to get maintenance. The petitioner having no independent
work and having low level education is not finding any suitable job is being starved and
 not having life equal to that of respondent. The respondent is having independent job and
also promised to look after this petitioner initially have driven back from his promise.
Respondent is also having share in the Joint family lands and rich enough having average
monthly income of Rs 20,000-00 from all sources.

4. The petitioner humbly submits that , the respondent is temporarily depending upon
parents of her and parents are poor enough and unable to maintain themselves and hence
this petitioner is more burden to her parents. The marriage between respondent and this
petitioner is a love marriage and parents are having their own grievances with the
marriage and hence this petitioner is under “thrishanku sthithi” in life hence this petition
for maintenance.

5. The petitioner humbly submits that , she require Minimum interim Maintenance of Rs
5,000-00 for her sustainable temporary livelihood as a temporary measure hence this
interim application. The petitioner further submit, that, they have not filed any other Suit,
Petition or application, initiating any other proceedings before any Court or Authority in
respect of the subject matter against the respondent seeking the same relief as sought in
this Petition. The Petitioner submit, that, she have no other alternative, effective or
adequate remedy otherwise than by means of filing this petition. No proceedings is
pending before any other Court on same cause of action.

6. The respondent is highly politically motivated person and may avoid the process of the
court and delay the proceedings with high tactics. The interim order is very much needed
to tide over the crisis of the petitioner and also to inculcate due discipline among
respondent in his lawful duties.

7. This petitioner have made out a primafacie case of lawful marriage and due neglect by
the respondent and needs badly the exparte order of court, no harm or injury will be
caused to respondent if interim maintenace is ordered by the court, contrarily this
petitioner will be put to very great hardship, irreparable loss, which cannot be equated in
terms of money or monies worth.

8. I submit that, I have made out a prima facie case. The balance of convenience fully lies
in our favour. If the interim order of exparte maintenance order is granted in our favour
no harm will be caused to the other side. Hence, this interlocutory application for interim
order, for maintenance

Wherefore this petitioner humbly prays this Hon’ble court to allow the interim application by
directing respondent to pay monthly interim maintenance of Rs 5,000-00 to this petitioner from
the date of application to the date of realization in the ends of Justice.

Date:-
Place:- Tumkur APPLICANT
VERIFICATION

I Pushpalatha.S the applicant/petitioner in the above petition do hereby solemnly affirm before
oath commissioner/Notary and verify that the facts stated in the above application is true and
correct and is explained by my advocate in kannada and I only stated the facts to my advocate
and I do affirm and sign as below.

Date:-
Place:- Tumkur PETITIONER

Identified by me

Advocate
 IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (JD) AND JMFC
AT TUMKUR
CMIS: /2011

PETITIONER /APPLICANT VS RESPONDENT/OPPONENT

PUSHPALATHA.S GURUSWAMY.S

LIST OF DOCUMENTS

Anne Description NATURE AND WITH

xure WHOM ORIGINAL LIES
P1 MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE ORIGINAL
P2 TEMPLE LETTER ORIGINAL
P3 EDUCATIONAL RECORD OF ORIGINAL
PETITIONER SHOWING HER POOR
EDUCATION
P4
P5
P6
P7
P8
P9
P10
P11
P12
P13
P14

PLACE : TUMKUR
DATED : ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER
 IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (JD) AND JMFC
AT TUMKUR
CMIS: /2011

PETITIONER /APPLICANT VS RESPONDENT/OPPONENT

PUSHPALATHA.S GURUSWAMY.S

INDE X

SL DESCRIPTION PAGE NO C.FEE PAID

NO
1 PETITION UNDER SECTION
125(1) OF CRPC
2 VAKALATH
3 INTERIM APPLICATION 10-00 WELFARE
UNDER SECTION 125(2) OF
CRPC
3 LIST OF DOCUMENTS
ALONG WITH DOCUMENTS
4 PROCESS MEMO
5 COPY OF PETITION AND IA
TO RESPONDENT
6
7
8
9

PLACE : TUMKUR
DATED : ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER
 IN THE COURT OF THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI

Complaint Case No 344 of 2011

In the matter of:

M/S Jay Motors

C-112, Kamala Nagar
New Delhi -110009
Through its Director Mr. Rajiv Singla …….Complainant

VERSUS

1. M/s Aditya Traders,

D-98, Kamala Nagar,
New Delhi -110009
2. Mr. Prakash Kulkarni, Managing Director
3. Mr. Bibhuti Sharma, Finance Director
4. Mr. Bijoy Dasgupta, Director …….Accused

POLICE STATION: Kamala Market

Complaint under section 190 of the Criminal procedure code, 1973 for taking cognizance of
the offense committed under sections 138, 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Most respectfully submitted

1. The complainant is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956
having its registered office at Kamala Market and the complainant is having its branch office in
Delhi at the above address. The Complainant Company disengaged in the business of sale of
spare parts of various vehicles. The present complaint is filed through Mr. Mr. Rajiv Singla
who is competent to file this complaint on behalf of the Company.

2. The accused No.1 is a company incorporated under the provisions of the companies Act. 1956
having its registered office in Delhi at above address . The accused No.1 company is engaged in
business of purchase and sale of used vehicles..

3. The accused NO 2 is the Managing Director, the accused No. 3 is the Finance Director and the
accused No.3 is the Director of the accused no.1 company and wholly responsible for the
conduct of the accused company. The affairs of the accused No. 1 company are managed by
accused no.2 to 4 and as such they are in control of the affairs of the accused No. 1 company &
liable of all the facts and deeds committed by the accused No.1 company.

4. The accused No.2 placed an order with the Complainant company on dated 10/09/2010 for the
supply of spare parts for various cars. The complainant company supplied the above machines
on Dated 22/12/1010 and the accused No.1 had taken delivery of the spare parts on dated
23/12/2010 vide delivery challan No. F-113 dated. 23/12/2010. The complainant company had
raised an Invoice No. MTL/PUR/56 dated 21/12/2010 for Rs. 3,44,582.00 (Rupees Three lakh
Forty four thousand Five hundred Eighty two)only on the accused No.1 company.

5. That the accused No.1 company through the hands of accused No. 3 issued a cheque drawn on
28/12/2010 bearing No. 2267822 of Bank of Baroda dated 28/12/2010 for Rs. 3,44,582.00
(Rupees Three lakh Forty four thousand Five hundred Eighty two)only in discharge of the
above liability.

6. That the complainant company presented the above said cheque for collection through its
banker State Bank of India and to its dismay found that the cheque was returned unpaid on
dated 22/01/2011 for want of sufficient funds in the A/c of the accused.

7. That the complainant had immediately sent a legal notice on dated 30/01/2011 to the accused
company demanding therein the payment of Rs. 3,44,582.00 (Rupees Three lakh Forty four
thousand Five hundred Eighty two)only within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. The above
notice of demand was received by the accused on dated 03/02/2011.

8. That the accused had failed to make payment of Rs. 3,44,582.00 (Rupees Three lakh Forty
four thousand Five hundred Eighty two)only within 15 days from the date of receipt of
statutory notice.

9. That the issuance of cheque by the accused without having sufficient funds in the bank is an
act which has been done deliberately, mischievously & malafidely with an intention to cheat the
complainant company. The accused was aware of the fact that on presentation the cheque would
never be honored because of insufficiency of funds in their A/c.

10. The complainant submit that it had presented the cheque within the time limit prescribed by
the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 and the dishonored cheque was issued by the accused by
the accused without maintaining sufficient funds in the account further the accused have failed to
make the payment of the sum covered under the dishonored cheque within 15 days from the date
of receipt of the notice of demands. Therefore, all the accused have committed the offense under
section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

11. That the complainant company had sent a registered legal notice to the accused No.1
company within the time limit prescribed by the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and the
accused had not made the payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice thereof. The above
said cheque was cheque was issued in Delhi and returned unpaid from the complainant's Bank in
Delhi, hence this Hon'ble court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offense.

PRAYER

It is, therefore most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to take the complaint
on record and punish the accused according to law and in the interest of justice.
New Delhi
Dated 22/03/2011

Complainant Counsel for the Complainant

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED

1. Cheque No. 2267822 of Bank of Baroda dated 28/12/2010 for Rs. 3,44,582.00 (Rupees
Three lakh Forty four thousand Five hundred Eighty two)only
2. Copy of the legal notice dated 19/02/2011 sent to the accused.
3. Postal proof of dispatch of the above legal notice(In original)
4. Postal Acknowledgment cards received back from the accused ( In original)

LIST OF WITNESSES

1. Mr. Gautam Jha S/o Mr. Nikhil Jha R/o Kamala Nagar
2. Mr. Alok Pal S/o Mr. Rana Pal R/o Kamala Nagar
3. Mr. Arun Pandit S/o Mr. Viru Pandit R/o Kamala Nagar