CHECK LIST UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I.

ACT
POLICE STATION NARELA
DISTRICT NORTH

1. NAME OF THE M/S KAMDHENU

COMPLAINANT INDUSTRIES

2. NAME OF THE MOHIT RUBBER FOAM

ACCUSED PERSON INDIA PVT. LTD.

3. CHEQUE NO. 010503, 010505 & 010504

RESPECTIVELY

4. CHEQUE AMOUNT Rs.74,549/-

(TOTAL)

5. CHEQUE DATED 19/10/2023, 12/11/2023 AND

18/11/2023 RESPECTIVELY

6. CHEQUE RETURNING ALL THREE CHEQUE

MEMO DATED RETURNING MEMO
DATED 12/01/2024.

7. LEGAL NOTICE 25/01/2024

DATED

8. DETAILS REGARDING N.A.

ANY OTHER CASES
U/S 138 NI ACT
PENDING AGAINST
SAME ACCUSED

9. ANY OTHER WITHIN LIMITATION AS

INFROMATION PER THE ORDERS OF THE
APEX COURT.

DELHI
DATED:
THROUGH
COUNSEL FOR COMPLAINANT
 IN THE COURT OF LD. CHIEF METROPLITAN
MAGISTRATE, NORTH, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI

CRIMINAL COMPLAINT NO ________ 2024

IN THE MATTER OF: -

M/S KAMDHENU INDUSTRIES ….COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

MOHIT RUBBER FOAM INDIA PVT. LTD. ….ACCUSED

POLICE STATION : NARELA

DISTRICT : NORTH

INDEX

S. NO. PARTICULARS PAGES COURT

FEE
1. MEMO OF PARTIES.
2. CRIMINAL COMPLAINT U/S 138
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT
ACT, ALONG WITH AFFIDAVIT.
3. LIST OF WITNESSES.
4. LIST OF DOCUMENTS ALONG
WITH DOCUMENTS.
5. PRE- SUMMONING EVIDENCE
BY WAY OF AFFIDAVIT.
6. VAKALATNAMA.

DELHI
DATED: THROUGH
[ABHIMANYU & AYUSH MITTAL]
COUNSEL FOR COMPLAINANT
Ch. No. 20, Civil Wing
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
Mob: 9717960907/9818621176
Email: [email protected]
 IN THE COURT OF LD. CHIEF METROPLITAN
MAGISTRATE, NORTH, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI

CRIMINAL COMPLAINT NO ________ 2024

IN THE MATTER OF: -

M/S KAMDHENU INDUSTRIES ….COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

MOHIT RUBBER FOAM INDIA PVT. LTD. ….ACCUSED

POLICE STATION : NARELA

DISTRICT : NORTH

MEMO OF PARTIES

M/S KAMDHENU INDUSTRIES

THROUGH IT’S PARTNER:
SH. DHARMENDER KHATRI
S/O LATE SH. VED PRAKASH KHATRI
REGD. OFFICE AT, S-49,
PHASE – 1, FIRST FLOOR,
BADLI INDUSTRIAL AREA,
BADLI, DELHI …. COMPLAINANT
VERSUS

MOHIT RUBBER FOAM INDIA PVT. LTD.

THROUGH IT’S DIRECTOR:
PRADEEP KHANNA
OFFICE AT: PLOT NO. 6,
SECTOR- 6, IIE SIDCUL PANT NAGAR,
DIST: U.S. NAGAR,
UTTRAKHAND
Also At:

24, FIRST FLOOR,

BASANT LOK COMMUNITY CENTER,
VASANT VIHAR,
NEW DELHI – 110057 …. ACCUSED

DELHI COMPLAINANT
DATED:
THROUGH

[ABHIMANYU & AYUSH MITTAL]

COUNSEL FOR COMPLAINANT
Ch. No. 20, Civil Wing
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
Mob: 9717960907/9818621176
Email: [email protected]
 IN THE COURT OF LD. CHIEF METROPLITAN
MAGISTRATE, NORTH, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT NO ________ 2024

IN THE MATTER OF: -

M/S KAMDHENU INDUSTRIES ….COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

MOHIT RUBBER FOAM INDIA PVT. LTD. ….ACCUSED

POLICE STATION : NARELA

DISTRICT : NORTH

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 138, NEGOTIABLE

INSTRUMENT ACT 1881; AS AMENDED UP TO DATE.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

[1.] That the Complainant firm i.e., M/s Kamdhenu Industries, is

working at small scale in area of production of mattress beeding
tapeearning his livelihood by honest & fair means by doing
business of making and producing sleep mattresses.
1.[2.] That one of the partners namely Sh. Dharmender Khatri has
been duly authorized to present/file: Complaint, Plaint,
Affidavit, Application, Appeal, Revision and to settle and
compromise the dispute, before the District Court as well as
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the matter against Mohit
Rubber Foam India Pvt. Ltd. and to do any act or deed as may
be required to be done in this regard in the aforesaid case on
behalf of the firm.
[3.]
2.[4.] That the Complainant was contacted by the accused person
through his purchase department executive i.e., Manish Sharma,
for supply of mattress beeding tape of specific description
 provided by the accused. Contact and discussions throughout
was made by said Manish Sharma and Director Pardeep
Khanna/Accused. Negotiations were undergone and particular
price was agreed and thereafter purchase order was placed by
Accused which was also sent through email dt. 22.06.2022. The
time agreed between the parties for payment was 30 days from
the date of delivery however it was also agreed between
Complainant and Accused that interest will not be imposed till
three months. It was specifically agreed that interest of 18%
will be calculated on the due amount from the date of 30 days
from the date of delivery, if not paid even after three months
from the date of delivery.
3.[5.] That ordered goods of specific description were
manufactured and were delivered to Accused on 28.06.2022.
Accused received the goods to his satisfaction and being
satisfied from the quality, again placed an order on 30.06.2022
through email. Again, goods were supplied to Accused by
Complainant, as ordered by accused, on 02.07.2022, 08.07.2022
and 11.07.2022. After the above stated deliveries, Accused was
reminded by complainant for the payment in respect of the
goods already delivered to the Accused by then. On that,
Accused assured the payment in the coming few weeks be
realized and also lured Complainant by telling him that Accused
was going to continuously order bigger quantity of goods from
Complainant.
4.[6.] That thereafter another order was placed by Accused on
phone and the same was delivered on 28.07.2022. In this way
goods of total amount Rs. 3,19,484/- were delivered to the
Accused. Due bills were also raised each time and were also
delivered to Accused with the goods each time.
5.[7.] That complete one month had passed after the first delivery
of goods, therefore after 28.07.2022, Complainant approached
Accused for the payment. Accused never denied the obligation
of payment and kept on taking time make the payment. Later,
three months passed and Complainant in strict manner asked
Accused for payment of amount due in month of September,
2022. Accused made excuses and redirected the complainant to
different departments within the accused’s company.
6.[8.] That Complainant continuously kept reminding Accused
however payment was not made and month of November, 2022
reached. In month of November and December 2022
Complainant visited office of Accused in Delhi, however,
payment was not made and Accused making excuses
continuously. In month of December, 2022, Complainant
having no other resort told Accused that if payment was not
made, he would initiate legal proceedings against Accused. On
that Accused requested Complainant to grant three more months
for payment and Accused made a promise to pay 18% per
annum interest on the total amount to be calculated till the date
of actual receipt of amount by Complainant. After detailed
discussions, in good faith and with promise of 18% interest,
Complainant granted you time till end of month of March,
2023.
7.[9.] That in mid of month of March, 2023 Complainant
approached the Accused and asked to make the payment. By
then Manish Sharma had left the accused’s company as
informed by accused himself. Accused started ignoring the
approaches made by Complainant. Complainant kept
approaching Accused continuously and after a month of
continuous approaches, Accused sent postdated cheques of the
 principal amount i.e. Rs. 3,19,484/-. Accused promised
Complainant that interest would be kept running till the
complete payment was not received by Complainant. Accused
promised to make payment of interest after six months from
then. Accused told and promised Complainant that arrangement
for honor of cheques had already been made and the cheques
will be honored and will be encashed on the dated respectively.
8.[10.] That Complainant submitted the cheques believing on the
words of Accused. Four cheques of total amount Rs.1,00,000/-
were encashed duly in the month of May, June and July, 2023.
However later in the months of August to October, 2023 few
cheques were dishonored including Cheque No.“010503”
amounting Rs.24,549/-. Accused told Complainant that you
would make the arrangements by first week of January 2024
and will also give fresh cheques for the already expired
cheques. As four cheques were duly honored and encashed,
Complainant believed assurances of Accused and waited till
month of January, 2024.
9.[11.] That in month of January, 2024, after due assurance from
Accused, Complainant submitted 3 cheques in his bank account
i.e., Kotak Mahindra Bank, for realization of payment, but to
the utter shock and dismay to Complainant, the same 3 cheques
were dishonoured stating remarks in returning memo dated
12/01/2024 as “PAYMENT STOPPED BY DRAWER”. The
details of the dishonoured cheques are:

S.No. Date of Cheque No. Amount Returning

Cheque Memo
1. 19/10/2023 010503 Rs.24,549/- 12/01/2024
2. 12/11/2023 010505 Rs.25,000/- 12/01/2024
3. 18/11/2023 010504 Rs.25,000/- 12/01/2024

10.[12.] That after dishonor of cheques and receiving return memo

through post, Complainant tried to contact Accused through all
available mode, but Accused started avoiding Complainant to
every extent because the accused did not want to face
Complainant after dishonoring of cheques.
11.[13.] That while issuing the aforesaid cheques bearing
No.010503, 010505 and 010504, Accused have assured
Complainant that the cheques issued by him shall be duly
honored on its due date of presentation.
12.[14.] That in these circumstances, Complainant has been left
with no other option but to get Legal Notice of Demand dated
25/01/2024, sent through speed post on 08/02/2024 served upon
Accused in respect of the cheques as follows:
S.No. Date of Cheque Cheque No. Amount
1. 19/10/2023 010503 Rs.24,549/-
2. 12/11/2023 010505 Rs.25,000/-
3. 18/11/2023 010504 Rs.25,000/-
TOTAL Rs.74,549/-

But the accused did not realize the amount and even did not
reply to the said legal notice dated 25/01/2024 sent through post
on 08/02/2024. The details regarding the Accused company can
be verified from their company’s master data mentioned by
them on website Zaubacorp.com, the same are attached
herewith.
13.[15.] That the above facts make it abundantly clear that the
accused had issued the aforesaid cheques with ulterior motives
and designs, knowing-fully that the said cheques would not be
 honored on presentation and has deliberately caused a wrongful
loss to complainant with malafide intention. It is worth noting
that the dishonest intention of the accused can be quantified
with the fact of remarks mentioned in all three returning
memo(s) as “PAYMENT STOPPED BY DRAWER”, which
clearly shows that the payment was deliberately stopped by the
Drawer/Accused.
14.[16.] That on account of the above facts, the accused is liable to
be prosecuted under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument
Act, 1881; as amended up to date under which accused is liable
to be punished with imprisonment which may extend to two
years or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the
cheque or with both.
15.[17.] That the complainant has complied with all the
requirements of section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act,
1881; as amended up to-date as the cheque in question was
presented in the bank, the complainant received the information
regarding the dishonor of the cheque from his banker. Hence,
the accused has failed to make the payment of their liability
within fifteen days of the said notice and as such the
complainant has approached this Hon’ble court within 30 days
of the date of cause of action. The complaint is, therefore,
within time therefore under limitation.
16.[18.] That the Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try
the present complaint because the Bank of the complainant i.e.,
Kotak Mahindra Bank New, Branch: Sector-18, Rohini,
Delhi – 110085; is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of
this Hon’ble Court.
17.[19.] That the complainant has not filed any other complaint
regarding the same claim except the present complaint.
P R A Y E R :-

It is therefore, most respectfully prayed, that this Hon’ble court

may very kindly summon the accused persons under section 138 of
the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881; as amended up to date and the
accused person may kindly be tried and punished in accordance with
law for the aforesaid offence committed by them; and / or,

Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper
in view of the fact and circumstances of the present case.

Prayed Accordingly.

DELHI COMPLAINANT
DATED:
THROUGH

[ABHIMANYU & AYUSH MITTAL]

COUNSEL FOR COMPLAINANT
Ch. No. 20, Civil Wing
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
Mob: 9717960907/9818621176
Email: [email protected]
L
 IN THE COURT OF LD. CHIEF METROPLITAN
MAGISTRATE, NORTH, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI

CRIMINAL COMPLAINT NO ________ 2024

IN THE MATTER OF: -

M/S KAMDHENU INDUSTRIES ….COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

MOHIT RUBBER FOAM INDIA PVT. LTD. ….ACCUSED

POLICE STATION : NARELA

DISTRICT : NORTH

AFFIDAVIT OF THE COMPLAINANT

I, Dharmender Khatri S/o Late Sh. Ved Prakash Khatri one of

the Partner of M/s Kamdhenu Industries, having its Regd. office At, S-
49, Phase–1, First Floor, Badli Industrial Area, Badli, Delhi, do
hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:-

1. That I am the complainant on behalf of M/s Kamdhenu

Industries being one of the partners of in the above stated
complaint case and well conversant with the facts of the case.

2. That the accompanying complaint U/S 138 NEGOTIABLE

INSTRUMENT ACT, 1881; as amended up to date, has been
drafted under my instruction and the contents of the same have
been read over and explain to me in vernacular and admitted by
me to be true and correct and be read as an integral part of this
affidavit, as for the sake of brevity they are not being repeated.

3. That the complainant has not filed any other complaint

regarding the same claim except the present complaint.
 DEPONENT

V E R I F I C A T I O N: -

Verified at Delhi, on this __ day of March, 2024, that the contents of

the above stated affidavit are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and nothing has been concealed there from.

DEPONENT
 IN THE COURT OF LD. CHIEF METROPLITAN
MAGISTRATE, NORTH, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT NO ________ 2024

IN THE MATTER OF: -

M/S KAMDHENU INDUSTRIES ….COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

MOHIT RUBBER FOAM INDIA PVT. LTD. ….ACCUSED

POLICE STATION : NARELA

DISTRICT : NORTH

LIST OF DOCUMENTS

S. NO PARTICULARS PAGES

1. Authorization letter
2. GST certificate
3. Original cheque no. 010503, dt: 19/10/2023.
4. Returning Memo dated 12/01/2024.
5. Original cheque no. 010505, dt: 12/11/2023.
6. Returning Memo dated 12/01/2024.
7. Original cheque no. 010504, dt: 18/11/2023.
8. Returning Memo dated 12/01/2024.
9. Legal Notice dt: 25/01/2024, Sent on 08/02/2024.
10. Postal receipt No. ED589944285IN, alongwith
delivery Report.
11. Postal receipt No. ED589944166IN, alongwith
delivery Report.
12. Certificate under section 65B Indian Evidence Act
13. Master data of the accused’s company from the
website Zauba Corp. alongwith Certificate under
section 65B Indian Evidence Act, alongwith
certificate U/S 65-B, Evidence Act.
 IN THE COURT OF LD. CHIEF METROPLITAN
MAGISTRATE, NORTH, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI

CRIMINAL COMPLAINT NO ________ 2024

IN THE MATTER OF: -

M/S KAMDHENU INDUSTRIES ….COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

MOHIT RUBBER FOAM INDIA PVT. LTD. ….ACCUSED

POLICE STATION : NARELA

DISTRICT : NORTH

LIST OF WITNESSES

1. Sh. Dharmender Khatri, Partner at M/S KAMDHENU

INDUSTRIES (Complainant).

2. Concerned bank official of HDFC Bank, Safdarjung

Development Area (SDA), New Delhi - 110018, alongwith the
complete record of cheques in question bearing no. 010503,
010504 and 010505, Rs.24,549/-, Rs.25,000/- and Rs.25,000/-
respectively alongwith returning memos of the cheques in
question.

3. Concerned bank official of Kotak Mahindra Bank New,

Branch: Sector-18, Rohini, Delhi – 110085; alongwith the
complete record of cheques in question bearing no. 010503,
010504 and 010505, Rs.24,549/-, Rs.25,000/- and Rs.25,000/-
respectively alongwith returning memos of the cheques in
question.

4. Any other witness, witnesses or evidence with the permission of

this Hon’ble court.
 IN THE COURT OF LD. CHIEF METROPLITAN
MAGISTRATE, NORTH, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI

CRIMINAL COMPLAINT NO ________ 2024

IN THE MATTER OF: -

M/S KAMDHENU INDUSTRIES ….COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

MOHIT RUBBER FOAM INDIA PVT. LTD. ….ACCUSED

POLICE STATION : NARELA

DISTRICT : NORTH

PRE-SUMMONING EVIDENCE BY WAY OF AFFIDAVIT

I, Dharmender Khatri S/o Late Sh. Ved Prakash Khatri, I am one of

the partners of M/s Kamdhenu Industries, having its regd. Office at, S-
49, Phase–1, First Floor, Badli Industrial Area, Badli, Delhi, do
hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under: -

1. That I being the deponent in the above noted case, am well

conversant with the facts of the same and thus competent to
swear this affidavit.

2. I say that the deponent is having a registered partnership firm

namely M/s Kamdhenu Industries having its office at the
aforementioned address and the firm and its partners were
having harmonial and cordial business relations with the
accused for a considerable time.

3. I say that I am authorized to present/file: Complaint, Plaint,

Affidavit, Application, Appeal, Revision and to settle and
compromise the dispute, before the District Court as well as
 Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the matter against Mohit
Rubber Foam India Pvt. Ltd. and to do any act or deed as may
be required to be done in this regard in the aforesaid case on
behalf of the firm. The Authorization letter is exhibited as EX-
CW1/1 and copy of GST certificate is exhibited as EX-CW1/2.

[4.] I say that the deponent has been working at small scale in area
of production of mattress beeding tapeearning his livelihood by
honest & fair means by doing business of making and
producing sleep mattresses.

4.[5.] I say that the Deponent was contacted by the accused person
through his purchase department executive i.e., Manish Sharma,
for supply of mattress beeding tape of specific description
provided by the accused. Contact and discussions throughout
was made by said Manish Sharma and Director Pardeep
Khanna/Accused. Negotiations were undergone and particular
price was agreed and thereafter purchase order was placed by
Accused which was also sent through email dt. 22.06.2022. The
time agreed between the parties for payment was 30 days from
the date of delivery however it was also agreed between
Deponent and Accused that interest will not be imposed till
three months. It was specifically agreed that interest of 18%
will be calculated on the due amount from the date of 30 days
from the date of delivery, if not paid even after three months
from the date of delivery.

5.[6.] I say that ordered goods of specific description were

manufactured and were delivered to Accused on 28.06.2022.
Accused received the goods to his satisfaction and being
satisfied from the quality, again placed an order on 30.06.2022
 through email. Again, goods were supplied to Accused by
Deponent, as ordered by accused, on 02.07.2022, 08.07.2022
and 11.07.2022. After the above stated deliveries, Accused was
reminded by deponent for the payment in respect of the goods
already delivered to the Accused by then. On that, Accused
assured the payment in the coming few weeks be realized and
also lured Deponent by telling him that Accused was going to
continuously order bigger quantity of goods from Deponent.

6.[7.] I say that thereafter another order was placed by Accused on

phone and the same was delivered on 28.07.2022. In this goods
of total amount Rs.3,19,484/- were delivered to the Accused.
Due bills were also raised each time and were also delivered to
Accused with the goods each time.

7.[8.] I say that complete one month had passed after the first
delivery of goods, therefore after 28.07.2022, Deponent
approached Accused for the payment. Accused never denied the
obligation of payment and kept on taking time make the
payment. Later, three months passed and Deponent in strict
manner asked Accused for payment of amount due in month of
September, 2022. Accused made excuses and redirected the
deponent to different departments within the accused’s
company.

8.[9.] I say that Deponent continuously kept reminding Accused

however payment was not made and month of November, 2022
reached. In month of November and December 2022 Deponent
visited office of Accused in Delhi, however, payment was not
made and Accused making excuses continuously. In month of
December, 2022, Deponent having no other resort told Accused
 that if payment was not made, he would initiate legal
proceedings against Accused. On that Accused requested
Deponent to grant three more months for payment and Accused
made a promise to pay 18% per annum interest on the total
amount to be calculated till the date of actual receipt of amount
by Deponent. After detailed discussions, in good faith and with
promise of 18% interest, Deponent granted you time till end of
month of March, 2023.

9.[10.] I say that in mid of month of March, 2023 Deponent

approached the Accused and asked to make the payment. By
then Manish Sharma had left the accused’s company as
informed by accused himself. Accused started ignoring the
approaches made by Deponent. Deponent kept approaching
Accused continuously and after a month of continuous
approaches, Accused sent postdated cheques of the principal
amount i.e. Rs.3,19,484/-. Accused promised Deponent that
interest would be kept running till the complete payment was
not received by Deponent. Accused promised to make payment
of interest after six months from then. Accused told and
promised Deponent that arrangement for honor of cheques had
already been made and the cheques will be honored and will be
encashed on the dated respectively.
10.[11.] I say that Deponent submitted the cheques believing on the
words of Accused. Four cheques of total amount Rs.1,00,000/-
were encashed duly in the month of May, June and July, 2023.
However later in the months of August to October, 2023 few
cheques were dishonored including Cheque No.“010503”
amounting Rs.24,549/-. Accused told Deponent that you would
make the arrangements by first week of January 2024 and will
 also give fresh cheques for the already expired cheques. As four
cheques were duly honored and encashed, Deponent believed
assurances of Accused and waited till month of January, 2024.
11.[12.] I say that in the month of January, 2024, after due
assurance from Accused, Complainant submitted 3 cheques in
his bank account i.e., Kotak Mahindra Bank, for realization of
payment, but to the utter shock and dismay to Complainant, the
same 3 cheques were dishonoured stating remarks in returning
memo dated 12/01/2024 as “PAYMENT STOPPED BY
DRAWER”. The details of the dishonoured cheques are:
S.No Date of Cheque Amount Returning
. Cheque No. Memo
1. 19/10/2023 010503 Rs.24,549/- 12/01/2024
2. 12/11/2023 010505 Rs.25,000/- 12/01/2024
3. 18/11/2023 010504 Rs.25,000/- 12/01/2024

The original cheque bearing no. 010503, 010505 and 010504 is

exhibited as EX-CW1/3, EX-CW1/4 and EX-CW1/5 respectively.
The returning memo of dated 12/01/2024 of cheque bearing no.
010503, 010505 and 010504 is exhibited as EX-CW1/6, EX-
CW1/7 and EX-CW1/8 respectively.

12.[13.] I say that after dishonor of cheques and receiving return

memo through post, Deponent tried to contact Accused through
all available mode, but Accused started avoiding Deponent to
every extent because the accused did not want to face Deponent
after dishonoring of cheques.
13.[14.] I say that while issuing the aforesaid cheques bearing no.
010503, 010505 and 010504, Accused have assured Deponent
that the cheques issued by him shall be duly honored on its due
 date of presentation.
14.[15.] I say that in these circumstances, Complainant has been
left with no other option but to get Legal Notice of Demand
dated 25/01/2024, sent through speed post on 08/02/2024
served upon Accused in respect of the cheques as follows:
S.No. Date of Cheque Cheque No. Amount
1. 19/10/2023 010503 Rs.24,549/-
2. 12/11/2023 010505 Rs.25,000/-
3. 18/11/2023 010504 Rs.25,000/-
TOTAL Rs.74,549/-

But the accused did not realize the amount and even did not
reply to the said legal notice dated 25/01/2024 sent through post
on 08/02/2024. The copy of Legal Notice dated 25/01/2024,
sent on both the addresses of accused is exhibited as EX-
CW1/9 and EX-CW1/10.
15.[16.] I say that the above facts make it abundantly clear that the
accused had issued the aforesaid cheques with ulterior motives
and designs, knowing-fully that the said cheques would not be
honored on presentation and has deliberately caused a wrongful
loss to deponent with malafide intention. It is worth noting that
the dishonest intention of the accused can be quantified with the
fact of remarks mentioned in all three returning memo(s) as
“PAYMENT STOPPED BY DRAWER”, which clearly shows
that the payment was deliberately stopped by the
Drawer/Accused. The original postal receipt sent on both the
addresses of accused are exhibited as EX-CW1/11 and EX-
CW1/12 respectively. The copy of delivery report of both the
postal receipt send on both the addresses of the accused
alongwith it’s certificate U/s 65-B Evidence Act are exhibited as
EX-CW1/13, EX-CW1/14 and EX-CW1/15 respectively.
16.[17.] I say that the details regarding the Accused company can
be verified from their company’s master data mentioned by
them on website Zaubacorp.com. The copy of accused’s
company master data webpage alongwith it’s certificate U/s 65-
B Evidence Act are exhibited as EX-CW1/16 and EX-CW1/17.
17.[18.] I say that on account of the above facts, the accused is
liable to be prosecuted under section 138 of the Negotiable
Instrument Act, 1881; as amended up to date under which
accused is liable to be punished with imprisonment which may
extend to two years or with fine which may extend to twice the
amount of the cheque or with both.
18.[19.] I say that the deponent has complied with all the
requirements of section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act,
1881; As amended up to-date as the cheque in question was
presented in the bank, the deponent received the information
regarding the dishonor of the cheque from his banker. Hence,
the accused has failed to make the payment of their liability
within fifteen days of the said notice and as such the deponent
has approached this Hon’ble Court within 30 days of the date of
cause of action. The complaint is, therefore, within time.
19.[20.] That the Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try
the present complaint because the Bank of the complainant i.e.,
Kotak Mahindra Bank New, Branch: Sector-18, Rohini,
Delhi – 110085; is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of
this Hon’ble Court.
20.[21.] I say that the deponent has not filed any other complaint
regarding the same claim except the present complaint.
21.[22.] I say that the contents of the complaint filed by me are true
and correct. The complaint filed by me is EX-CW1/A, which
bears my signature at point “P” and the affidavit, is exhibited as
 EX-CW1/B, which bears my signature at point “A” and “B”.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:

Verified at Delhi on ___ this day of March, 2024 that all the contents
of this affidavit are correct and true to my knowledge and nothing
material has been concealed thereupon.

DEPONENT