PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. - (1.) In Complaint Case No. 541/IX/2015 (Ram Chandra Sharma Vs. Subhash Mittal) the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Chhata, District Mathura had passed order dated 11.6.2016 by which applicant was summoned for prosecution of offence under section 138 N.I. Act. The summoning order as well as proceeding of said complaint case has been challenged by applicant through present application.
(2.) Heard counsel for the applicant and AGA and perused the record.
(3.) Counsel for the applicant contended that in complaint it is mentioned that complainant had given amount of cheque as loan, but he has no licence for profession of money lending. His further contention was that date of service of legal notice after dishonor of cheque was not proved, therefore there is no evidence that complaint was filed after lapse of period of 15 days after service of notice, which is illegality. His another submission was that the applicant's cheques were lost about which police and bank were informed and payment of those cheques were stopped under direction of applicant. In such matter provision of section 138 N.I. Act are not attracted. On the basis of these contentions, it was argued on behalf of applicant that proceedings of trial court should be quashed.;