Final Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 92 CC NI ACT / 6023/2026 Mathew Martin Vs. Alphonse Perera /0
08.07.2026
There is pendency of more than 39,000 cases in the present court, therefore, it is not
possible to give shorter date in the cases.
Present : Dr. Alex Joseph and Ms Supriya, Ld. Counsels for
complainant.
Matter is listed for compliance/ consideration.
Ld. Counsel for complainant submits that the payee
on both the cheques in question are different as the same were
joint account holders of the same bank account. He concedes that
a complaint is not maintainable in law, if filed by two
complainants and that two separate complaints should have been
filed. However, he pleads that an opportunity may be given to
him to move an application for amending the complaint
appropriately in respect of one of the cheques in question.
Even if, the prayer of ld.counsel for complainant
were to be taken at its face value, it is still to be considered by
the court, if the ingredients of section 138 NI Act would be made
out, if complaint is allowed to be amended and the same is
sought to be filed by one of the complainants in respect of one of
the cheques in question.
Both the cheques in question were separately drawn
for a sum of Rs.7.5 Lacs each. However, if the prayer of
complainant was to be considered in respect of maintainability of
the complaint with respect to one of the cheques in question for a
sum of Rs.7.5 Lacs, the same has to bear consonance with the
demand made in the legal demand notice.
A perusal of the legal demand notice would reveal
that demand has been made from the accused for a sum of Rs. 15
Lacs i.e. for both the cheques in question.
-- 1 of 2 --
-2-
In terms of settled law, a complaint cannot be said to
be maintainable, if a higher demand is made in the legal demand
notice than the amount reflected on the cheque in question.
Henceforth, court is not in favour of granting the
complainant an opportunity to move an application for
appropriately amending the complaint with respect to one of the
complainants, as if the same were to be considered, the legal
demand notice addressed to the accused is for a sum higher than
the amount reflected on one of the cheques in question.
Accordingly, since the present complaint could not
have been filed by two complainants in law, the present
complaint is dismissed as non maintainable.
Since nothing remains, file be consigned to Record
Room.
(Anjali Singh)
JMFC (NI Act) – 03/PHC/ND/08.07.2026
-- 2 of 2 --