AMAR UPADHYAY S/O SHRI HARSHAD UPADHYAY, B/C BRAHMIN, RESIDENT OF B Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
LAWS(RAJ)-2017-1-122
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on January 30,2017

Amar Upadhyay S/O Shri Harshad Upadhyay, B/C Brahmin, Resident Of B Appellant
VERSUS
The State Of Rajasthan Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Vijay Bishnoi, J. - (1.) This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 12.05.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the revisional court'), whereby the Criminal Revision Petition No.9/2013 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. The said revision petition was filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 07.11.2012 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate (NI Act Cases) No.2, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Criminal Complaint Case No.3975/2009, whereby the trial court took cognizance against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the NI Act') and summoned him through warrant of arrest.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2 filed a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act before the trial court while alleging that M/s. Mihir Virani Multi Trade Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the MVMT Company') had issued cheque to him for business purpose, however, on presenting the said cheque in the concerned bank, the same was not honored. A notice under Section 138 of the NI Act was sent to the MVMT Company and the same was received by it, but the dues of the respondent No.2 had not been paid and, therefore, he had filed the complaint against the Directors and the Manager of the MVMT Company.
(3.) Initially, the trial court took cognizance against the petitioner and one another person viz. Sunil Vyas vide order dated 20.02.2008, however, a revision petition was preferred by the petitioner against the said order of trial court of taking cognizance. The said revision petition was allowed and the matter was remanded to the trial court with a direction to consider and decide the ground raised by the petitioner to the effect that in 2007 he was not the Director of the MVMT Company as he had already resigned on 28.12.2013.;


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