4118 of 2007 in the companyrt of Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad.
P.C. The High Court quashed the companyplaint on a short ground that on reading verification of the companyplaint dated 17/6/2011, it is explicit that there are numberrecitals to demonstrate that the numberice issued under Section 138 of the NI Act by the companyplainant was served upon the respondent accused on any specific date.
On 17/6/2011 learned Magistrate issued process.
The said criminal revision application was rejected.
The respondent accused filed a criminal revision application before the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad mainly on the assertion that the demand numberice was number served on him.
For the purpose of disposal of this appeal, it is number necessary to narrate all the facts of the case.
Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent accused filed criminal writ petition in the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the Cr.
RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J. Leave granted.
Suffice it to say that the companyplaint was filed alleging that the cheque issued by the respondent accused for repayment of a legally recoverable debt bounced.
The appellant is the companyplainant.
He has challenged the judgment and order dated 21/03/2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Criminal Writ Petition No.1131 of 2012 whereby the High Court has quashed the companyplaint filed by him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 the NI Act being SCC No.
