Decided on March 26,2018

Mirnal Kumar Sarma Appellant
M/S Jain Agencies And Others Respondents


RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN,J. - (1.) The petitioner/accused preferred this petition under section 482 CrPC, 1973 challenging the impugned order dated 12.08.2014 and the entire proceeding pertaining to CR Case No. 4144/2013 now pending in the Court of Addl. CJM, Kamrup (M).
(2.) The respondent No. 2 as complainant filed a complaint under section 138 N.I Act against the present petitioner on the ground that the cheque amounting to Rs. 3,18,702/- issued by the petitioner's firm UFONIC in favour of the complainant was dishonoured and despite the demand notice issued by the complainant to the petitioner no payment was made. By its order dated 6.12.2013 the learned trial court took cognizance of the offence under section 138 N.I Act and issued summons to the accused named therein namely Gautam Das (accused No. 2) who is the proprietor of the said firm and the firm (accused No. 1). Repeated summons issued to the said person Gautam Das was not served and returned with report that there is no such person as Gautam Das.
(3.) On 30.07.2014 the complainant/respondent moved an application before the court that there is an error in the name of the propertior of the firm and it is wrongly typed Gautam Das instead of Minal Kumar Das and sought permission to correct the name of the proprietor by inserting the name of Sri Minal Kumar Sharma as Proprietor of the said firm. By the impugned order dated 12.08.2014, the learned trial court allowed the petition and by inserting the name of the present petitioner as prayed for issued summons to the present petitioner which is now challenged by the present petition on the ground that the said complaint as well as the order passed by the learned court is not tenable against the present petitioner and liable to be quashed and set aside on the ground that the no demand notice was sent to the present petitioner, rather it was sent to said Gautam Das, and NI Act being a special law certain procedure has to be followed to raise cause of action but the learned trial court has ignored the mandates of law prior to taking cognizance of the offence.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.