:_ ; '-- -.
, $5.12.».
113 THE HIGH comer ore xmzxasraxvm AT _
Dated this the 15"' day of '4
BEFORE
THE HOIPBLE ma. méfrzcs ii Ema
Writ Petitiztxn No'; '193'?_8 '§§f:2{Ti{}T; (€}M~R.EVS)
BETWEEN; H
Smt,Jy'ofi Khaflflfi 2: _
Wfo Shri .
Aged 35 yttaxsi V. » ' '
Gee: T401198 Wifréx. V " _ '
R/0 rm. :2; N3;=g<e:an._"
Delhi 110 3:34 _ ' . ...Pet:itioner
{'35: R B~.V:)€$i1pande, Advocate)
: $14: A Cé:Si$.ieai1na
' ._ S19
Aged 4.0 W38
CI.¥cc: Nutkfuown
, R/o..H Shivananjc G01-vtia
AA Fixzaor, Teachers Colcmy
' » Maddur Tawn
" 'Maigxdya District
V. '§Sri Despak Kharma
S/Cr T N Khanna
Aged 4} 3:62:12;
Gan: R11s:inesas
mswndmt has filed a petition for divomx: in the F amiiy Court
15/,'
Rio B437, Pushpanjali Enclave
Pitampura
Dc1hi-3-4 Rcsp.a§:;g:;::$; ~ _ "
(By sn' H C Shivaramu, aavmagef foi-JT;2'::.;' * 7
Resp..No..:'o94 £I?CR~«..No.83/2007} vidc
A11nex11m~D at the earh'est."u »
This Writ Pmifion .f0:zf heazing in
'B' Group this day, 41213;:->_~ Court 1_a;=ade't.hé .fo}IQ§5zing:
:,m;..n ;
The for writ of ccfiioiari for
(washing théfi pending on the file of the
Ieamed» C}J$1:&ud$;¢ (Jr D11) 85 JMFCI at Maddur in CC
:'V'.B{{§;:I9S§;4;2¥f};i?;f7 N033/2097) produocd at Annexum-9 and
to array respondent No.2 as accused in
A” V ‘ the iniercst git’
* The amend respondent is the husband of the
n -fiéfrlflginer, There appears to be matnm’ oniai dispute betwaen
petitioner and the second Iespbndcnt. The second
the criminal prooeedings on the basis of the said legal _
vitiated and therefore the entire proceedings
He also submits that in the event fine 3 ‘inunoff
accepted, the learned Magistxnte is ‘in be io
cnglizizanoe against the second mspondent and_;iS::.:ie Summons.
4. I do not VA of these contentions. In V xyvthe Apex Court, what has been should be oonstmed
strictly. pIeoe£.i:e:uat’Whei’efor is service of notice.
It is one may not only represent
the unpaid aznountVVV’1_1nde1′. §heque but aiso other incidental
vexpensen’ Iike ooSi:5;.._nnd fnterests, but the name wouid not
“notice would be vague and capable of two
notice without specifying as to What was
2 ‘fi:1e Aunder the dishonoured eheque would not
” ‘gnzheerve fequirenient of law. The respondent No.1 was not
–11f§:;on to pay the anrzount which was payable under the
n issued by him. The amount which is (railed upon to
was the outstanding amounts of bills of Rs.8,?2,409/–.
ks}?/’ ‘