Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 104 (RAJ)

Sultan Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2024-01-16

MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

body2024
ORDER : Mr. Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J. - This criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC has been filed assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 18.08.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khetri, District Jhunjhunu (for brevity "the learned Revisional Court) in Criminal Revision No.48/2023 whereby, while dismissing the revision petition preferred by the accused-petitioner (for short "the petitioner"), the order dated 17.06.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Khetri, District Jhunjhunu (for brevity "the learned trial Court") in Case No.585/2020 allowing the application filed under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1881") and directing the petitioner to pay to the respondent No.2/complainant (for short "the complainant") a sum of Rs. 50,000/- representing twenty per cent of the cheque amount, has been affirmed. 2. The relevant facts in brief are that the complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 against the petitioner wherein, while allowing the application filed by her under Section 143A of the Act of 1881, the learned trial Court vide order dated 17.06.2023 directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant representing twenty per cent of the cheque amount. The revision petition preferred there against by the petitioner has been dismissed by the learned Revisional Court vide order dated 18.08.2023. 3. Assailing the order impugned, the only contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he did not have any privity of contract with the complainant; rather, the cheque in question was handed over to her husband. He, therefore, prays that the criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed, the order dated 18.08.2023 be quashed and set aside and the application filed by the complainant under Section 143A of the Act of 1881 be dismissed. 4. Heard. Considered. 5. While allowing the application vide order dated 17.06.2023, the learned trial Court has observed that there was a prima-facie case in favour of the complainant as she was holding the subject cheque issued by the petitioner in her name. The finding has been upheld by the learned Revisional Court while re-appreciating the material on record. The contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is wholly misconceived and does not merit acceptance as there is no material on record to substantiate the same. The finding has been upheld by the learned Revisional Court while re-appreciating the material on record. The contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is wholly misconceived and does not merit acceptance as there is no material on record to substantiate the same. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the order dated 18.08.2023 passed by the learned Revisional Court. 6. Resultantly, this criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.