138 Mamta Fortune 24 2

IN THE COURT OF CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, WEST
DISTT., TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
COMPLAINT NO. OF 2010
IN THE MATTER OF:-
MS. MAMTA VERMA ………………COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
M/S FORTUNE MAPPLE INFRA

PROMOTORS PVT. LTD. & ORS ………………………ACCUSED
INDEX
S.No. PARTICULARS PAGES
1. MEMO OF PARTIES
2. COMPLAINT U/S 138/142 OF THE

NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT.
3. LIST OF WITNESSES
4. LIST OF DOCUMENTS ALONGWITH

DOCUMENTS.
5. VAKALATNAMA
6. AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLAINANT AS PER

THE GUIDELINES OF HON’BLE APEX
COURT.
7. EVIDENCE BY WAY OF AFFIDAVIT
COMPLAINANT
THROUGH
(TANWAR & ASSOCIATES)

ADVOCATES
PLACE:-DELHI CH. NO. V-32, TEHSIL LANE,
DATED:-29/11/2010 TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
IN THE MATTER OF:-
VERSUS

MEMO OF PARTIES
MS. MAMTA VERMA,

W/O SH. ASHOK VERMA,
R/O B-40, CPWD COLONY,
SOUTH MOTI BAGH,
NEW DELHI …………….COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
1. M/S FORTUNE MAPPLE INFRA

PROMOTORS PVT. LTD.
809, VISHWA SADAN BUILDING,
DISTRICT CENTER, JANAK PURI,
NEW DELHI.
2. MS. SARITA BHATNAGAR(DIRECTOR)

D/O SH. RAJINDER KR. BHATNAGAR
PROMOTORS PVT. LTD.
NEW DELHI.
ALSO AT:-
R/O L-2/70A, MAHAVIR NAGAR,
NEW DELHI-110018.
3. SH. MANISH SHARMA(DIRECTOR)

S/O SH. ARUN SHARMA
PROMOTORS PVT. LTD.
DISTT CENTER, JANAK PURI,
NEW DELHI.
ALSO AT:-
R/O F-64, VIKAS PURI,
NEW DELHI.
4. SH. MANJEET SINGH (DIRECTOR)

PROMOTORS PVT. LTD.
NEW DELHI.
ALSO AT:-
R/O B-43, SEERA ENCLAVE,
PASCHIM VIHAR, DELHI. ……………………ACCUSED

ADVOCATES
IN THE MATTER OF:-
MS. MAMTA VERMA,

W/O SH. ASHOK VERMA,
R/O B-40, CPWD COLONY,
SOUTH MOTI BAGH,
NEW DELHI ……………COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
1. M/S FORTUNE MAPPLE INFRA

PROMOTORS PVT. LTD.
NEW DELHI.
2. MS. SARITA BHATNAGAR(DIRECTOR)

D/O SH. RAJINDER KR. BHATNAGAR
PROMOTORS PVT. LTD.
NEW DELHI.
ALSO AT:-
R/O L-2/70A, MAHAVIR NAGAR,
NEW DELHI-110018.
3. SH. MANISH SHARMA(DIRECTOR)

S/O SH. ARUN SHARMA
PROMOTORS PVT. LTD.
NEW DELHI.
ALSO AT:-
R/O F-64, VIKAS PURI,
NEW DELHI.
4. SH. MANJEET SINGH (DIRECTOR)

PROMOTORS PVT. LTD.
NEW DELHI.
ALSO AT:-
R/O B-43, SEERA ENCLAVE,
PASCHIM VIHAR, DELHI. ……………………ACCUSED
P.S.:-PASCHIM VIHAR
COMPLAINT U/S 138/141/142 OF THE NEGOTIABLE

INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881, AS AMENDED BY BANKING
PUBLIC INSTITUTION AND NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS
LAW AMENDED AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT,
2002 (ACT No. 55 OF 2002) AND READ WITH CHAPTER XV
OF CRIMINAL PROCUDURE CODE, 1973
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-
1. That the complainant is the law abiding citizen of

India and has been residing at abovesaid with her family
members.
2. That the accused no. 1 is a company duly

registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged
in business of developing Commercial as well as residential
complex under the name and style of M/s Fortune Mapple
Infra Promotors Pvt. Ltd. and the accused no. 2-4 are the
Directors and authorised signatory of the accused no. 1
and are looking after and responsible for day to day affairs
of the accused no. 1.
3. That the accused floated a scheme of investment

in their project and after being satisfied with the
representation made by the representative of the accused
persons, complainant invested an amount of Rs.
1,04,000/- in their project on 30/12/2009 on certain terms
and conditions which were reduced into writing.
4. That at the time of accepting investment amount,

the complainant was assured by the accused persons in
writing vide MOU that the accused shall issue sixty
cheques of Rs. 8000/- in favour of the complainant within
thirty days from the receipt of investment amount.
5. That acting as per their assurance, the accused
no. 2 to 4 for and on behalf of accused no. 1 being its
Directors/ Authorised signatory issued sixty cheques in
favour of the complainant and assured that the same will
be honoured on their presentation.
6. That believing their assurance complainant

presented the cheque no. 86018 dated 20/07/2010; Ch.
No. 86019 dated 20/08/2010 and Ch. No. 86020 dated
20/09/2010 for Rs. 8000/- each drawn on UCO Bank,
Paschim Vihar, New Delhi lastly on 25/09/2010 with her
banker i.e. Union Bank of India for realisation but to the
utter shock and surprise of the complainant said cheques
returned dishonored with remarks “Insufficient Funds”
which was received by the complainant from his banker
vide three separate Debit advice dated 25/09/2010.
7. That on receipt of the dishonoured cheques the

complainant contacted the accused and demanded the
cheques amount in cash or by way of bankers cheque but
the accused started avoiding the complainant on one
pretext or the other.
8. The complainant having no other option, got

issued a legal notice dated 19/10/2010 through his
advocate Sh. Rakesh Tanwar under Regd. Ad. Cover,
Speed Post and UPC. Office copy of the Legal Notice,
Postal Receipt, Speed Post Receipts and UPC slip are
enclosed. The complainant through this Notice requested
the accused to make payment of dishonoured cheques
amount within 15 days. The notice sent through Regd. Ad
as well as UPC at residential address duly served upon
accused persons while the notice sent at the office address
returned back with remarks “Left”. Despite service of legal
notice, the accused persons have neither paid the cheques
amount nor replied the said notice.
9. That the above facts makes it abundantly clear

that the accused have mischievously and intentionally
issued the aforesaid cheques with ulterior motive and
further instructed the complainant to present the same for
encashment knowing fully well that the said cheques would
not be honoured on its presentation as the accused have
insufficient funds in account from which the cheques in
question have been issued by them in due discharge of
their liability towards the complainant, thus, the accused
have committed an offence which is punishable under
section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act for which the
prescribed punishment is with the imprisonment for a term
which may extended to two years or with fine which may
extended to twice of dishonoured cheque amount or with
both.
10. That the accused by way of abovesaid act gain

unlawful profit to their self and caused unlawful loss to the
complainant, hence, the accused are also liable to be
prosecuted under section 420 IPC.
11. That the accused is liable to pay the cheques

amount of Rs. 24,000/- to the complainant.
12. That this Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to take

cognizance and to try the present complaint case as
banker of the accused i.e. UCO Bank is situated at Paschim
Vihar, Delhi which comes within territorial jurisdiction of
Police Station Paschim Vihar, Delhi.
13. The complaint case is being filed within the period

of limitation as provided under Negotiable Instruments Act.
In the premises aforesaid and in facts and circumstances
of case as explained herein above it is therefore, most
respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be
pleased to:-
(a) Summon, try and punish the accused for the offence
U/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 as amended
(Act No. 66 of 1988).
(b) Pass necessary order(s) Under section 357 of Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 that amount of said cheque
alongwith interest accrued thereon and the expenses
incurred by complainant be paid to the complainant apart
from amount which will be imposed as fine by this Hon'ble
Court and/or
(c) Pass any other relief which, this Hon'ble Court deem fit
and proper under the facts and circumstances of complaint
in favour of the complainant and against accused.
COMPLAINANT
THROUGH

ADVOCATES
IN THE MATTER OF:-
VERSUS

AFFIDAVIT
I, Mamta Verma W/o Sh. Ashok Verma R/o B-40, CPWD Colony,
South Moti Bagh, New Delhi, do hereby solemnly affirm and
declare as under:-
1. That the deponent is complainant in the abovesaid case

and is well conversant with the facts and circumstances of
the case and as such competent to swear this affidavit
before this Hon'ble Court.
2. The contents of accompanying complaint U/s 138/142 NI

Act, has been drafted by my counsel under my instruction
and same has been read over by me, understood by me
and are true & correct to my knowledge.
3. The deponent crave leave of this Hon'ble Court to read the

contents of complaint as part and parcel of this affidavit as
same are not repeated here for sake of brevity.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:-
Verified at Delhi on this 29 th day of November

2010 that the contents of my above affidavit are true and correct
to my knowledge and no part of it is false and nothing material
has been concealed therein.
DEPONENT
IN THE MATTER OF:-
VERSUS

LIST OF WITNESSES
1. Complainant in person.
2. Manager/Clerk concern of UCO Bank B/o Paschim Vihar,

Delhi with record pertaining to cheque no. 86018 dated
20/07/2010; Ch. No. 86019 dated 20/08/2010 and Ch. No.
86020 dated 20/09/2010 for Rs. 8000/- each drawn on
UCO Bank, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi.
3. Manager/clerk of Union Bank of India B/o Alipur, Delhi,

with record pertaining to cheque no. 86018 dated
UCO Bank, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi and debit advice
dated 25/09/2010.
4. Any other witness with prior permission of this Hon'ble

Court.
COMPLAINANT
THROUGH

ADVOCATES
IN THE MATTER OF:-
VERSUS

LIST OF DOCUMENTS
1. Photocopy of MOU executed by and between the

parties.
2. Cheque no. 86018 dated 20/07/2010; Ch. No. 86019

dated 20/08/2010 and Ch. No. 86020 dated 20/09/2010
for Rs. 8000/- each drawn on UCO Bank, Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi
3. Three Original Debit advices dated 25/09/2010 issued

by the Banker of the complainant.
4. Legal notice dated 19/10/2010.
5. Postal Receipts, Speed Post receipt and UPC slip dated

20/10/2010.
6. Original Returned AD Cards.
COMPLAINANT
THROUGH

ADVOCATES
IN THE MATTER OF:-
VERSUS

EVIDENCE BY WAY OF AFFIDAVIT ON

BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
declare as under:-
1. That the deponent is complainant in the abovesaid case

and is well conversant with the facts and circumstances of
the case and as such competent to swear this affidavit
before this Hon'ble Court.
2. The deponent stats that the complainant is the law abiding

citizen of India and has been residing at the abovesaid
with her family members.
3. The deponent stats that the accused no. 1 is a company

duly registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is
engaged in business of developing Commercial as well as
residential complex under the name and style of M/s
Fortune Mapple Infra Promotors Pvt. Ltd. and the accused
no. 2-4 are the Directors and authorised signatory of the
accused no. 1 and are looking after and responsible for day
to day affairs of the accused no. 1.
4. The deponent stats that the accused floated a scheme of

investment in their project and after being satisfied with
the representation made by the representative of the
accused persons, complainant invested an amount of Rs.
1,04,000/- in their project on 30/12/2009 on certain terms
and conditions which were reduced into writing. Copy of
MOU is Ex CW1/1.
5. The deponent stats that at the time of accepting

investment amount, the complainant was assured by the
accused persons in writing vide MOU that the accused shall
issue sixty cheques of Rs. 8000/- in favour of the
complainant within thirty days from receipt of investment
amount.
6. The deponent stats that acting as per their assurance, the

accused no. 2 to 4 for and on behalf of accused no. 1 being
its Directors/ Authorised signatory issued sixty cheques in
favour of the complainant and assured that the same will
be honoured on their presentation.
7. The deponent stats that believing their assurance

complainant presented the cheque no. 86018 dated
UCO Bank, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi lastly on 25/09/2010
with her banker i.e. Union Bank of India for realisation but
to the utter shock and surprise of complainant said
cheques returned dishonored with remarks “Insufficient
Funds” which was received by complainant from his banker
vide three separate Debit advice dated 25/09/2010. Three
Original Cheques are Ex CW1/2 to CW1/4 and Three
original Debit Advice dated 25/09/2010 is Ex CW1/5 to
CW1/7.
8. The deponent stats that on receipt of the dishonoured

cheques the complainant contacted the accused and
demanded the cheques amount in cash or by way of
bankers cheque but the accused started avoiding the
complainant on one pretext or the other.
9. The deponent stats that the complainant having no other

option, got issued a legal notice dated 19/10/2010 through
his advocate Sh. Rakesh Tanwar under Regd. Ad. Cover,
Speed Post and UPC. Office copy of the Legal Notice is Ex
CW1/8, Postal Receipt are Ex CW1/9A to CW1/9__,
Speed Post Receipts are Ex CW1/10A to CW1/10__ and
UPC slip is Ex CW1/11(Colly). The complainant through
this Notice requested the accused to make payment of
dishonoured cheques amount within 15 days. The notice
sent through Regd. Ad as well as UPC at residential
address duly served upon accused persons while the notice
sent at the office address returned back with remarks
“Left”. Despite service of legal notice, the accused persons
have neither paid cheques amount nor replied said notice.
Original returned AD Cards are Ex CW1/12(Colly).
10. The deponent stats that above facts makes it abundantly

clear that accused have mischievously and intentionally
issued the aforesaid cheques with ulterior motive and
further instructed the complainant to present the same for
encashment knowing fully well that the said cheques would
not be honoured on its presentation as the accused have
insufficient funds in account from which the cheques in
question have been issued by them in due discharge of
their liability towards the complainant, thus, the accused
have committed an offence which is punishable under
section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act for which the
prescribed punishment is with the imprisonment for a term
which may extended to two years or with fine which may
extended to twice of dishonoured cheque amount or with
both.
11. The deponent stats that the accused by way of abovesaid
act gain unlawful profit to their self and caused unlawful
loss to the complainant, hence, the accused are also liable
to be prosecuted under section 420 IPC.
12. The deponent stats that accused is liable to pay the

cheques amount of Rs. 24,000/- to the complainant.
13. The deponent stats that this Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction
to take cognizance and to try the present complaint case
as banker of accused i.e. UCO Bank is situated at Paschim
Vihar, Delhi which comes within territorial jurisdiction of
Police Station Paschim Vihar, Delhi.
14. The deponent stats that complaint case is being filed within
period of the limitation as provided under Negotiable
Instrument Act. Copy of the complaint is Ex CW1/13.
15. The deponent reaffirms the prayer clause of the complaint.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:-

DEPONENT
IN THE MATTER OF:-
VERSUS

AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

AS PER DIRECTIONS OF APEX COURT
declare as under:-
1. The deponent is the attorney holder of the complainant

in abovesaid case and is well conversant with facts and
circumstances of case and competent to swear this
affidavit before this Court.
2. The deponent states that he has no objection in

compounding the matter if any amicable settlement/
compromise arrived between the deponent and the
accused on first or second date of hearing.
3. The deponent further states that he has not filed any

similar complaint/case against the accused on the issue
stated in the above stated case in any court of law.
4. The deponent undertakes to comply each and every

condition/direction imposed upon him by Court at the time
of compounding the matter.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:-
DEPONENT

138 Mamta Fortune 24 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

138 Mamta Fortune 24 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE COURT OF CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, WEST

DISTT., TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.

COMPLAINT NO. OF 2010

IN THE MATTER OF:-

MS. MAMTA VERMA ………………COMPLAINANT

M/S FORTUNE MAPPLE INFRA

S.No. PARTICULARS PAGES

2. COMPLAINT U/S 138/142 OF THE

4. LIST OF DOCUMENTS ALONGWITH

6. AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLAINANT AS PER

7. EVIDENCE BY WAY OF AFFIDAVIT

(TANWAR & ASSOCIATES)

COMPLAINT NO. OF 2010

IN THE MATTER OF:-

MS. MAMTA VERMA ………………COMPLAINANT

M/S FORTUNE MAPPLE INFRA

MS. MAMTA VERMA,

1. M/S FORTUNE MAPPLE INFRA

2. MS. SARITA BHATNAGAR(DIRECTOR)

3. SH. MANISH SHARMA(DIRECTOR)

4. SH. MANJEET SINGH (DIRECTOR)

(TANWAR & ASSOCIATES)

COMPLAINT NO. OF 2010

IN THE MATTER OF:-

MS. MAMTA VERMA,

1. M/S FORTUNE MAPPLE INFRA

2. MS. SARITA BHATNAGAR(DIRECTOR)

3. SH. MANISH SHARMA(DIRECTOR)

4. SH. MANJEET SINGH (DIRECTOR)

COMPLAINT U/S 138/141/142 OF THE NEGOTIABLE

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-

1. That the complainant is the law abiding citizen of

2. That the accused no. 1 is a company duly

3. That the accused floated a scheme of investment

4. That at the time of accepting investment amount,

6. That believing their assurance complainant

7. That on receipt of the dishonoured cheques the

8. The complainant having no other option, got

9. That the above facts makes it abundantly clear

10. That the accused by way of abovesaid act gain

11. That the accused is liable to pay the cheques

12. That this Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to take

13. The complaint case is being filed within the period

(b) Pass necessary order(s) Under section 357 of Code of

(TANWAR & ASSOCIATES)

COMPLAINT NO. OF 2010

IN THE MATTER OF:-

MS. MAMTA VERMA ………………COMPLAINANT

M/S FORTUNE MAPPLE INFRA

1. That the deponent is complainant in the abovesaid case

2. The contents of accompanying complaint U/s 138/142 NI

3. The deponent crave leave of this Hon'ble Court to read the

Verified at Delhi on this 29 th day of November

COMPLAINT NO. OF 2010

IN THE MATTER OF:-

MS. MAMTA VERMA ………………COMPLAINANT

M/S FORTUNE MAPPLE INFRA

2. Manager/Clerk concern of UCO Bank B/o Paschim Vihar,

3. Manager/clerk of Union Bank of India B/o Alipur, Delhi,

4. Any other witness with prior permission of this Hon'ble

(TANWAR & ASSOCIATES)

COMPLAINT NO. OF 2010

IN THE MATTER OF:-

MS. MAMTA VERMA ………………COMPLAINANT