madhu mittal
02 July 2014 at 11:56
My basic question is that after filing of FR that there is no offence, at the time of considering this report i.e. at the time of taking cognizance/closing the complaint at the magistrate level, can named (prospective) accused represent himself or through any lawyer, because it is he who is going to suffer the agony of trial if cognizance is taken due to negligence at the level of Magistrate sir, or govt. lawyer i.e. some decided legal decisions are not brought to the notice of Magistrate sir. So please guide whether at the time of considering this report by the Magistrate Sir, the named accused can represent himself or through lawyer.
madhu mittal
07 September 2013 at 14:13
NBFC/financer gave a loan of Rs. 100000/- to be repaid in 36 installments by 36 post dated cheques an employee of BSNL, Jaipur on the basis of undertaking given by BSNL that if the cheque of employee/borrower is returned unpaid, the amount of unpaid cheque of installment will be deducted from the salary and sent to NBFC. When the cheques kept on returning, some regd letters were sent to BSNL for deduction of amount of unpaid cheques, but no reply was sent, and in the meantime some installments were also paid by the borrower and this kept on going. But in June 2013, a reply was sent by BSNL that the undertaking was not issued by the department and the concerned employee/borrower was transfered to BSNL, Sikar in January 2013, recovery should be done at your level.
When a registered letter was sent to borrower/employee at Sikar asking whether he has taken loan on forged undertaking, it was got back undelivered marking there is no such sendee by the Post Office Dept. Now two Regd letter was sent to BSNL Jaipur, those were replied telling same thing that Department did not issue the undertaking and this is being denied third time to you. At the same time BSNL Authority on telephone told NBFC that if you further sent letter to us, we will take action against you.
AT the time of giving loan to borrower/employee, the undertaking was not got verified from the department. But on the back of undertaking, it was got written in the handwriting of borrower “ The undertaking is given by Mr. X and Mr. X is authorized to give this undertaking.
Now Please let me know whether if NBFC does further correspondence with the BSNL, Jaipur, whether the department can take any criminal/civil action against NBFC if NBFC further writes to BSNL, Jaipur, “if the undertaking was not issued by your department, you(BSNL) should file FIR for forging undertaking against your employee and copy of that forwarded to NBFC or get deducted the amount and sent to NBFC. Simply denying is not enough.”
madhu mittal
28 June 2013 at 23:45
A loan was given to a Govt. Employee (Senior Clerk, handicapped by legs and when he writes his hand tremble) repayable in 24 installments on the basis of 24 post dated cheques, in addition to this, an undertaking from his Department(employer) was also given that if the cheque of borrower will be dishonoured, the amount of cheque will be deducted from his salary and sent to financer. At the time of taking loan, on the back portion of the undertaking, it was written “this undertaking is given by Mr. X and Mr. X is authorized to give this undertaking” and this writing is written by a person (As borrower’s hand trembles when he writes) who is accompanied with the borrower and , unknown to financer, afterwards, it was signed by the borrower. The said undertaking is not verified by the financer from the Department.
When cheques were dishonoured, firstly, the borrower was asked by regd letter that the amount should be deposited, otherwise your undertaking will be sent to department, when amount was not paid, the undertaking was sent to department, and afterwards, he has deposited the amount of dishonoured cheques, but no reply from the department.
But again, the cheques were dishonoured, same process was followed, but this time, his department wrote that the undertaking was not issued by this department and you should not do correspondence with department. Thus four cheques were become due and a notice u/s 138 dated 28.06.2013 was also issued to borrower, that was duly received by him on 01.06.2013. The Department gave notice to the borrower for action against him on 15.04.2013, 02.05.2013, 24.05.2013 and lastly on 30.05.2013 u/s 16 of C.C.A. of departmental inquiry along with photocopy of undertaking also.
After taking photocopy of undertaking, the borrower put a complaint u/s 156(3) to Magistrate court on 04.06.2013( because lodging of FIR was denied by the police on 02.06.2013 ) that the undertaking is made by the employee of financer to pressurize me to repay and it is forged one, only the signature (taken at the time of giving loan, at blank papers) is mine, and writing that undertaking is given by my departments’ authorized person is not in my handwriting, thus offence u/s 409,420,467,468,471 and 120 B was committed. This information and copy of complaint against financers’ employees u/s 156(3) was got by financer from borrowers’ department letter dated 26.06.2013 in reply of financers’ letter for getting deducted amount of cheques from salary of borrower, as the borrower gave this complainants’ copy to his department in reply dated 20.06.2013 to notice u/s 16 C.C.A issued to borrower and in said reply dated 20.06.2013, it has come to notice that said borrower took loan from another financer and said allegation against another financer were made u/s 156(3) on 01.06.2003 in one another magistrate court and copy of that was also given to his department.
Now First question, whether the employees of financer can present themselves in court for telling the whole truth, before sending the complaint to police u/s 153(3) i.e whether there is a locus standi to appear in the court as the financer got the information from the dept, and not from the court. Second question, whether the complaint for making a false complaint u/s 156(3) against financers’ employees should be made against the borrower. Third any remedy to financer to save himself and his employees and get punished the borrower.
madhu mittal
20 June 2013 at 23:31
Many a time, cases u/s 138 N I Act, an application was filed in trial court having false statement that cheque handed over as a blank cheque, and it should be sent for FSL test, just to delay the proceedings, whereas the post dated cheques duly filled up by accused in his own handwriting and along with a signed letter of handing over cheques with cheques description just like date, amount ,cheque no. , the drawee bank name were given at the time of taking loan. Does this come in perjury as the application is not supported by any affidavit and there is no verification as in Affidavit?
madhu mittal
15 June 2013 at 15:12
if cheque bounce offence is taken away(as per news dated 4.06.2013), what will the fate of existing cases u/s 138 N I Act.
madhu mittal
31 May 2013 at 12:49
Many a times, in a case u/s 138 N I Act, cognizance is taken, court issued summon and sent Police Station for execution, but at hearing dates, summon is not sent back to court, either as executed or non-executed. So is the cases with Bailable Warrant and Arrest Warrant whenever issued. What action in court should be initiated by complainant, so that he should not suffer further, whenever Summon-B/w-A/w is not got returned, In spite of verbal request to Presiding Officer, that there is no fault of complainant if non-executed or executed summon, B/w and A/w did not reach the court’s file, the court simply gives next date of hearing. So let me know what should complainant to do, in this position as he is real sufferer.
madhu mittal
21 August 2012 at 00:13
JAIN FISCAL SERVICES PVT.LTD vs SHRI SHANKAR SONI AND ANR
slp crim 12812 of 2012 order dated 05072012 was dismissed for non-prosecution in Supreme Court. Any remedy available to me i.e. JAIN FISCAL SERVICES PVT.LTD, the petitioner?
madhu mittal
26 July 2011 at 11:46
I want to study in depth to know in which section or rules, it is written that an affidavit will be submitted alongwith the surety-bond for bailable offence and what will be the performa of the Affidavit. In law where it is written that a person standing surety for one accused can not be surety of any other accused in any other case.
With regards and thanks in advance
isohunt, utorrent
madhu mittal
22 July 2011 at 02:07
In a case u/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act there were two accused say A and B, so one surety named X gave bail for both the accused. The said person X gave bail to another accused named C in a separate case u/s 138.While giving bail for each accused, the surety X executed an affidavit. So in these way Surety X executed three affidavit and in each affidavit there is one point of affidavit that I ( i.e. surety) am not surety for any other accused. Now my question is whether the Surety X is not guilty of perjury u/s 193 IPC for giving false affidavit. If yes, how and in whose jurisdiction can he be prosecuted for this offence.
emule, utorrent
Member Strength 9,47,693 and growing..
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Not following supreme court ruling by presiding judge
Respected Sirs,
At the time of filing cases u/s 138, if ruling of Supreme Court and Rajasthan High court is shown to Prisiding Officer in trial court, that the trial should be summary/summon, and if he does not do work accordingly ruling of Supreme Court or Raj High court (in rajsthan), what actions can be taken against that judge in person according to law.