IN THE COURT OF THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE: DELHI
COMPLAINT CASE NO.______ OF 2011
IN THE MATTER OF:
Shri Raminder Singh

Complainant
VERSUS

Sh. D.P.S. Malohtra

Accused
I N D E X

SL.NO.

PARTICULARS

PAGE NO.

1.

MEMO OF PARTIES

2.

COMPLAINT U/S 138 OF

N. I. ACT

3.

LIST OF WITNESSES

4.

LIST OF DOCUMENTS
WITH DOCUMENTS

5.

EVIDENCE BY WAY OF
AFFIDAVIT

COURT FEE

6. VAKALATNAMA
____________________________________________

DELHI
DATED:

COMPLAINANT
THROUGH
(DALJIT SINGH SODHI & ASSOCIATES)
ADVOCATES

IN THE COURT OF THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE: DELHI
COMPLAINT CASE NO.______ OF 2011
IN THE MATTER OF:
Shri Raminder Singh

Complainant
VERSUS

Sh. Sh. D.P.S. Malohtra

Accused

MEMO OF PARTIES
Shri Raminder Singh
S/o Sh. Balbir Singh
R/o A-180, 3rd Floor,
Fateh Nagar,
New Delhi
Sh.D.P.S. Malohtra,
s/o Sh.Jagjit singh
r/Oc-25,Shyam Nagar,
New Delhi-110018
ALSO AT:
E-12,Shyam Nagar,
New Delhi-110018

DELHI
DATED:

Complainant
VERSUS

Accused

THROUGH

COMPLAINANT

(DALJIT SINGH SODHI & ASSOCIATES)

ADVOCATES

IN THE COURT OF THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE: DELHI
COMPLAINT CASE NO.______ OF 2010
IN THE MATTER OF:
Shri Raminder Singh
S/o Sh. Balbir Singh
R/o A-180, 3rd Floor,
Fateh Nagar,
New Delhi

Complainant
VERSUS

Sh.D.P.S. Malohtra,
s/o Sh.Jagjit singh
r/Oc-25,Shyam Nagar,
New Delhi-110018
ALSO AT:
E-12,Shyam Nagar,
New Delhi-110018

Accused

P.S.Tilak Nagar
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 138 & 142 OF NEGOTIABLE
INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881 AS AMENDED UPTO DATE
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1.

That the complainant is a peace loving and

law abiding citizen of Delhi and is residing at

the

above

mentioned

family members.

address

alongwith

his

He is well conversant with the

facts of the case and competent to sign, verify

and file the present complaint.
2.

That accused was known to the complainant

since long and both were friends together and

were having good terms with each other beside

business relations. Therefore, the accused in
the

month

of

August,

2010

approached

the

complainant at his residence and requested the

complainant

for

Rs.10,00,000/-

friendly/hand

(Rupees

Ten

Lac

loan

of

Only).

The

complainant considering the good terms with the

accused and looking into his need, gave him a
sum of Rs.10,0,0000/-in August, 2010 in cash
despite having the fact that the accused have
an outstanding
by

the

of credit which he was allowed

complainant

in

relation

to

bussiness

and for said hand loan accused also executed

promissory

note,

acknowledgement

of

debt

receipt in presence of marginal witnesses and

assured

the

same

would

be

paid

before

MAY,2011However, the complainant as well as the

accused being friends together and having faith
in each other did not reduce any writing in
respect of the aforesaid loan amount except the
aforesaid Promissory Note, Acknowledgement of
debt,

Receipt

witnesses.

in

presence

of

marginal

3.
2011

That thereafter in the 1st week of MAY,

when

the

complainant

insisted\contacted

for return of the loan amount the accused paid

Rs. 1,00,000/- in cash and issued two cheques
bearing

no.209184 & 209186 dated 19.06.2011

&28.06.2011

respectively

drawn

on

ALLHABAD

BANK Tilak Nagar, New Delhi-110018.

4. That thereafter as per instructions when the
complainant
through

presented

his

the

aforesaid

banker

LTD.R.C.C.2214/15,

ING

Hardyan

cheques

VYSYA

singh

Bank

road,Karol

bagh, New Delhi for its encashment, the same

were dishonoured and returned unpaid with the
remarks

FUNDS

retuning

memos

INSUFFICENT,
dated

Vide

30.06.2011

cheque

which

was

handed over to complainant by his banker .

5.

That

on

receipt

of

the

aforesaid

dishonoured cheque the complainant immediately

contacted

the

accused

and

regarding

the

dishonour

of

informed
the

him

aforesaid

cheques and requested him to pay the cheques

amount in cash but the accused adopted delaying
tactics.

The

complainant

was

running

from

pillar to post to get his amount back which was

given to the accused as loan, but the accused

kept

on

avoiding

to

repay

the

same

to

the

complainant.
6.

That the dishonoured cheques were lastly

received back by the complainant on 30.06.2011

by his banker and the complainant having no
other option, sent a demand/legal notice dated
19.07.2011(sent on 21.07.2011) to the accused
through his counsel by Regd. AD post and Speed
Post

as

well

aforesaid

notices

deliberately have not been received

by the

accused, as

The

notices sent through

speed-post have

REGD.POST &

returned back to the counsel

of the complainant with the remarks LENE SE

INKAR KIYA(Refused to take)
not

made

dishonoured

the

payment

and the accused

of

the

cheques/loan

amount

the

is

aforesaid
to

the

complainant.
7.

That

accused

unnecessarily

harassing the complainant by utilising the hard

earned money of the complainant for his own
wrongful gain and causing wrongful loss to the
complainant, and till today the accused has not
paid the aforesaid dishonoured cheques total

amounting to Rs.9,00,000/- to the complainant,

and

the

accused

now

has

flatly

refused

and

denied his legal liability to repay the same to

the complaiannt.
8.

That from the act, conduct and behaviour

of the accused, it is established that he was

having

malafide

intentions

at

the

time

of

issuing the aforesaid cheques in favour of the

complainant

as

after

issuing

the

aforesaid

cheques the accused did not arrange sufficient

funds in his account

so that the said cheques

could not be honoured/encashed.

the

accused

has

cheated

and

In this way
defrauded

the

complainant of his legitimate hard earned money

thereby also causing breach of trust and the
accused

has

made

himself

liable

to

be

prosecuted under the provisions of Section 138

& 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
9.

That the accused is liable to pay a sum of

Rs.9,00,000/-

(Rupees

Nine

amount of the aforesaid

the

complainant

Only),

the

dishonoured cheque, to

towards

aforesaid loan liability.

Lac

discharge

of

his

10. That the cause of action for filing the

present complaint arose on different dates when
the

accused

issued

detailed

above

towards

due

in

the

aforesaid

favour

discharge

of
of

cheque

as

the

complainant

his

loan/legal

liability and the complainant made demands to

return his money and the accused sought more
and more time to repay the same.

Cause of

action thereafter arose on 30.06.2011 when the

aforesaid cheque were dishonoured by the banker
of

the

accused

ARRANGEMENT.
on

with

remarks

The cause of action again arose

19.07.2011(sent

on

21.07.2011),

complainant sent a legal notice

under

the

EXCEED

provisions

of

when

the

to the accused

Section

138

of

the

Negotiable Instruments Act through his counsel

by

Regd.A/D

Post

and

Speed

post

Cause

of

action is still subsisting and continuing one

as the accused has not made the payment of the
aforesaid

dishonoured

cheques/loan

amount

to

the complainant till date and is with-holding

and enjoying the proceeds/amount of the same
for

his

personal

wrongful

gain

wrongful loss to the complainant.

and

causing

11. That

this

Honble

Court

has

got

jurisdiction to try and entertain the present

complaint
presented

as
at

the
Delhi

cheque
and

was

were

issued

dishonoured

and
at

Delhi within the territorial jurisdiction of

this

Honble

Court

where

the

accused

and

complainant are residing and working for gain

and where also the cause of action arose for
filing of the present complaint.
12. That the present complaint is being filed
within the period of limitation.
13. That the appropriate court fee has been
affixed on the complaint.
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed
that the present complaint be registered and
the accused be summoned, tried and punished in
accordance with the law for the commission of
said offence under the Negotiable Instrument
Act, in the interest of justice.

DELHI
DATED:

COMPLAINANT
THROUGH
(DALJIT SINGH SODHI & ASSOCIATES)
ADVOCATES

IN THE COURT OF THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE: DELHI
COMPLAINT CASE NO.______ OF 2011
IN THE MATTER OF:
Shri Jatinder Singh

Complainant
VERSUS

Sh. Harjinder Singh

Accused

LIST OF WITNESSES
1.

The Complainant

2. The Clerk concerned of ING VYSYA BANK

LTD.,R.C.C.,2214/15,Hardyan singh road, Karol
bagh, New DELHI alongwith the record of
dishonoured cheque bearing No.209184 & 209186
dated 19.06.2011 28.06.2011, deposited by the
complainant for encashment.
3. The Clerk concerned of, of
ALLHABAD
BANK, Tilak NAGAR, New Delhi alongwith the
record of dishonoured cheque bearing No. 209184
& 209186 dated 19.06.2011 28.06.2011 issued by
the accused in favour of the complainant.
4.The

marginal

witness

no.1

shri

Jatinder

singh s\o srd. Balkar singh r\o 1-C\4 ,Ramesh

Nagar,N.DELHI-110015.
5.Sh.Harpreet singh s\o srd.Harcharn Singh r\O
E-53, Guru Nanak Pura, Jail Road,N.DELHI.
Any other relevant witnesses
permission of this Honble Court.
DELHI
DATED:

with

the

COMPLAINANT
THROUGH
(DALJIT SINGH SODHI & ASSOCIATES)
ADVOCATES

IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:

DELHI
COMPLAINT CASE NO.______ OF 2011
IN THE MATTER OF:
Shri Raminder Singh

Complainant
VERSUS

Sh. Vikram Patial

Accused
P.S. Hari Nagar

EVIDENCE BY WAY OF AFFIDAVIT,

ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
I, Raminder Singh S/o Sh. Balbir Singh R/o
A-180,3ed Floor ,Fateh Nagar, New Delhi110018,
do

hereby

solemnly

affirm

and

declare

as

under:1.That the deponent is a peace loving and law

abiding citizen of Delhi and is residing at the
above mentioned address alongwith his family
members.

He is well conversant with the facts

of the case and competent to sign, verify and

file the present complaint.
2.

That

accused

was

known

to

the

deponent

since long and both were friends together and

were having good terms with each other beside
business relations. Therefore, the accused in
the

month

of

August,

2010

approached

the

deponent

at

complainant

his

residence

for

Rs.10,00,000/-

and

requested

friendly/hand

(Rupees

Ten

Lac

the

loan

of

Only).

The

deponent considering the good terms with the

accused and looking into his need, gave him a
sum of Rs.10,0,0000/-in August, 2010 in cash
despite having the fact that the accused have
an outstanding

of credit which he was allowed

by the deponent in relation to bussiness

for

said

hand

promissory

loan

note,

accused

also

acknowledgement

and

executed

of

debt

receipt

in presence of marginal witnesses and

assured

the

same

would

be

paid

before

MAY,2011However, the deponent as well as the

accused being friends together and having faith
in each other did not reduce any writing in
respect of the aforesaid loan amount except the
aforesaid Promissory Note, Acknowledgement of
debt,

Receipt

witnesses.

The

in

presence

aforesaid

of

marginal

Promissory

Note,

Acknowledgement of debt, Receipt are exhibited

as EX-CW-1/1 TO EX-CW-1/3.
3.

That thereafter in the 1st week of MAY,

2011 when the deponent insisted\contacted for

return of the loan amount the accused paid Rs.

1,00,000/bearing

in

respectively

Tilak

cheques

and

issued

two

cheques

no.209184 & 209186 dated 19.06.2011

&28.06.2011
BANK

cash

Nagar,

bearing

New

drawn

on

ALLHABAD

Delhi-110018.The

no.209184

&

209186

two

dated

19.06.2011 &28.06.2011 are exhibited and marked

as EX-CW-1/4 & EX-CW-1/5.
4. That thereafter as per instructions when the
deponent

presented

through

his

the

aforesaid

banker

LTD.R.C.C.2214/15,

ING

Hardyan

cheques

VYSYA

singh

Bank

road,Karol

bagh, New Delhi for its encashment, the same

were dishonoured and returned unpaid with the
remarks

FUNDS

retuning

memos

INSUFFICENT,
dated

Vide

30.06.2011

cheque

which

was

handed over to deponent by his banker .

The

retuning memos dated 30.06.2011 is marked as

EX-CW-1/6.
5.

That

dishonoured

on

receipt

cheque

the

of

the

deponent

contacted

the

accused

and

regarding

the

dishonour

of

aforesaid
immediately

informed
the

him

aforesaid

cheques and requested him to pay the cheques

amount in cash but the accused adopted delaying

tactics.

The deponent was running from pillar

to post to get his amount back which was given

to the accused as loan, but the accused kept on
avoiding to repay the same to the deponent.
6.

That the dishonoured cheques were lastly

received back by the deponent on 30.06.2011 by

his banker and the deponent having no other
option,

sent

demand/legal

notice

dated

19.07.2011(sent on 21.07.2011) to the accused

through his counsel by Regd. AD post and Speed
Post

as

well

19.07.2011

The

(sent

on

legal

notice

21.07.2011)

and

dated
postal

receipt are marked as EX-CW-1/7 to EX-CW-1/10.

The aforesaid notices deliberately have not
been received
through

by the accused, as

notices sent

REGD.POST & speed-post have

returned

back to the counsel of the deponent with the

remarks LENE SE INKAR KIYA(Refused to take)
and the accused
aforesaid

not made the payment of the

dishonoured cheques/loan amount to

the complainant. 7.
unnecessarily
utilising

the

That

harassing
hard

the
the

earned

accused
deponent

money

of

is
by
the

complainant

for

his

own

wrongful

gain

and

causing wrongful loss to the deponent, and till

today the accused has not paid the aforesaid
dishonoured

cheques

total

amounting

to

Rs.9,00,000/- to the deponent, and the accused

now has flatly refused and denied his legal
liability

to

repay

the

same

to

the

complaiannt.The returned envelops are marked as

EX-CW-1/11
8.

to EX-CW-1/13.

That from the act, conduct and behaviour

of the accused, it is established that he was

having

malafide

intentions

at

the

time

of

issuing the aforesaid cheques in favour of the

deponent as after issuing the aforesaid cheques
the accused did not arrange sufficient funds in
his account

so that the said cheques could not

be honoured/encashed.

In this way the accused

has cheated and defrauded the deponent of his

legitimate

hard

earned

money

thereby

also

causing breach of trust and the accused has

made himself liable to be prosecuted under the
provisions

of

Section

138

Negotiable Instruments Act.

&

142

of

the

9.

That the accused is liable to pay a sum of

Rs.9,00,000/-

(Rupees

Nine

amount of the aforesaid

to

the

deponent

Lac

Only),

the

dishonoured cheques,

towards

discharge

of

his

aforesaid loan liability.

10. That the cause of action for filing the
present complaint arose on different dates when
the

accused

detailed
towards

issued

above
due

liability

the

in

favour

discharge

and

the

aforesaid
of

cheque

the

of

his

deponent

made

as

deponent
loan/legal

demands

to

return his money and the accused sought more

and more time to repay the same.

Cause of

action thereafter arose on 30.06.2011 when the

aforesaid cheque were dishonoured by the banker
of

the

accused

INSUFFICENT.
on

with

remarks

on

21.07.2011),

deponent sent a legal notice

the

FUNDS

The cause of action again arose

19.07.2011(sent

under

provisions

of

when

the

to the accused

Section

138

of

the

Negotiable Instruments Act through his counsel

by

Regd.A/D

Post

and

Speed

post

Cause

of

action is still subsisting and continuing one

as the accused has not made the payment of the

aforesaid

dishonoured

cheques/loan

amount

to

the deponent till date and is with-holding and

enjoying the proceeds/amount of the same for
his personal wrongful gain and causing wrongful
loss to the deponent.

11. The deponent states that his complaint as

well as this affidavit is correct and no other
case between the parties with regard to cheque
is pending anywhere.
12. That the present complaint is being filed
within the period of limitation.
13. That the appropriate court fee has been
affixed on the complaint.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
Verified

at

Delhi

on

this

23ed

day

of

August, 2011 that the contents of the above

affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge
and

nothing

therefrom.
DEPONENT

material

has

been

concealed