Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 111 (HP)

Ses Ram v. Reeta Bhardwaj

2014-02-03

RAJIV SHARMA

body2014
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.3.2014 rendered by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Kullu in Criminal Complaint No. 166-1/2011/33-1/2013. 2. ?Key facts? necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that appellant filed a complaint against the respondent under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. According to the appellant, respondent has borrowed a sum of Rs. two lakhs from him. Respondent issued a cheque on 28.2.2011 bearing No.083767 amounting to Rs.two lakhs drawn on Dhalpur Branch of the State Bank of India. The cheque was presented to the bank for encashment on 3.3.2011. It was dishonoured by the bank on account of ?insufficient funds?. A legal notice was issued to the respondent on 4.3.2011. The trial court took cognizance of the matter vide order dated 13.7.2011. The substance of accusation was served upon the respondent on 30.4.2012. She pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3. The appellant has appeared as CW-1. He has tendered his evidence by way of Ex.CA. He has reiterated the stand taken in the complaint in Ex.CA. The appellant has placed on record Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4. He was crossexamined. He did not know that the respondent was resident of Gandhi Nagar. He did not know from where she has obtained education. He did not know about the native place of respondent. He did not know about the house of respondent. He did not know about the occupation of the respondent. According to him, husband of the respondent may be employed as Junior Engineer in I.P.H. He did not know about the children of the respondent. He did not know whether the parents of Parveen Bhardwaj were alive or not. He has entered into agreement with Parveen Bhardwaj to sell the land. The agreement was cancelled subsequently. He did not know about the consideration of sale. Volunteered that the agreement was entered for consideration of Rs. twelve lakhs on 28.1.2011. He did not remember that he has taken advance of Rs.one lakh on 28.1.2011 and he has also accepted cheque from the wife of Parveen Kumar on 28.2.2011. The balance amount was to be received on 30.3.2011 after the registration. He has issued notice to Parveen Kumar. Thereafter, the agreement was cancelled. 4. CW-2 Shiv Chand has deposed that cheque Ex. C-1 had come to his bank for encashment. 5. The balance amount was to be received on 30.3.2011 after the registration. He has issued notice to Parveen Kumar. Thereafter, the agreement was cancelled. 4. CW-2 Shiv Chand has deposed that cheque Ex. C-1 had come to his bank for encashment. 5. Respondent has produced copy of agreement dated 28.1.2011 marked as DA. 6. Case of the appellant, in a nutshell, is that he had advanced a sum of Rs.two lakhs to the respondent by way of loan. However, it has come on record that an agreement was entered into between the appellant and husband of the respondent. A sum of Rs. one lakh was received by the appellant. The agreement was cancelled. The appellant has not led any evidence that he has advanced loan to the respondent. It is evident from the tone and tenor of the cross-examination of the appellant that he did not know respondent. Thus, there was no occasion for him to advance loan of Rs. two lakhs to a unknown person. Rather, the appellant has admitted that an agreement was entered into between the parties to sell the land vide agreement dated 28.1.2011. The appellant has failed to make out a case against the respondent that the cheque in question was issued by her in discharge of any lawful liability. The sale deed was to be executed on 30.3.2011. However, before that an agreement was cancelled. 7. Accordingly, in view of the analysis and discussion made hereinabove, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. Pending application (s), if any, also stands disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.