JUDGMENT :

1. The present application is preferred by the applicant-original complainant under sub-section (4) of Section 378 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, seeking permission of this Court to challenge the order of acquittal dated 14.10.2022 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge & Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vapi in Criminal Case No.2391 of 2018. By the said judgment and order, the learned Magistrate has recorded the order of acquittal of respondent No.1-accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for the sake of brevity, it is referred as “the Act”).

2. The brief facts as alleged by the original complainant in the complaint, are re-produced as under:

2.1 The complainant claims to be the sole proprietor of Suraj Road Carrier, who is engaged in the business of road carrier. It is the case of the complainant that he came in contact with respondent No.1-original accused through Om Prakash Shukla and Anurag Shukla. It appears that both the parties were in the business of road carrier. The complainant had shown his interest of purchase of the land. It is contended by the complainant that he along with the accused and her husband and other witnesses had visited the site of the land, which he proposed to purchase. Since the respondent No.1 insisted for token amount of such land dealing, the complainant claims to have handed over the cash of an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- to respondent No.1-accused.

2.2 It is the case of the complainant that the said transaction failed as the original owners of the land showed their unwillingness to sell the land. In such circumstances, the complainant had raised the demand to repay the amount handed over to the accused as a token amount of the said land transaction. The complainant claims to have received cheque bearing No.216152 of an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- handed over to him by the accused on 03.10.2018 of State Bank of India.

2.3 It is further contended in the complainant that the accused had assured to make payment through such cheque as and when, cheque is presented for realization. However, when the complainant deposited the said cheque in the concerned bank, the same was dishonored with endorsement “funds insufficient” on 05.10.2018. In such circumstances, the complainant was constrained to serve legal notice on the accused raising demand of the repayment of the outstanding amount within a period of 15 days. The complainant claims to have served such notice upon the accused on 10.10.2018. It is further contended that though notice was duly served upon the accused, she chose not to respond to such notice nor repaid amount in dispute. In such circumstances, the complainant was constrained to approach the Court of learned Additional Senior Civil Judge & Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vapi, which was registered as Criminal Case No.2391 of 2018 on 26.11.2018.

3. After due verification of the complainant, the learned Magistrate issued summons upon the accused. The said summons were duly served and the accused had appeared before the learned Magistrate, whereby the plea of the accused was recorded and wherein she had categorically denied the alleged transaction with the complainant.

3.1 The learned Magistrate had therefore, proceeded for summary trial of the criminal case. The matter had proceeded for recording the evidence. The complainant had produced mainly four documentary evidence, which includes disputed cheque (Exh.13), bank memorandum slip (Exh.14), notice dated 10.10.2018 (Exh.15) and postal slip (Exh.16). After recording the oral evidence of the complainant in the form of Exh.4, the cross-examination of the complainant was done by the accused. On closing pursis being filed by the complainant, further statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., wherein, she had denied the case put forward by the complainant and had raised specific defence that the complainant has lodged false case against her.