Dishonour of Cheque--Acquittal--Security Cheque--Personal Loan--No ordinary person would lend Rs. 10,20,000/- without any document to a person with whom he has no acquaintance and also when that person is introduced by some relative.
.

Mr. Inderjit Singh, J.:- Applicants-Ranbir Singh and Amrit Kaur have filed this application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. seeking permission for leave to appeal against respondent Umed Singh, challenging the impugned judgment dated 30.03.2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bahadurgarh, vide which the accused-respondent was acquitted.

2. It is mainly stated in the application that accompanying appeal is being filed which is likely to succeed on the grounds taken therein. It is, therefore, prayed that leave to appeal be granted.

3. As per the record, the complainants Ranbir Singh and Amrit Kaur filed a complaint against accused Umed Singh under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. As per complainants’ version, in the month of January 2009, the accused was in need of Rs. 10,20,000/- for his domestic purposes. He requested the complainants to give a sum of Rs. 10,20,000/- and complainants paid the said amount to the accused on interest at the rate of 1% per month. After several requests, the accused in order to discharge his legally enforceable liability to repay the aforesaid loan amount, issued cheque bearing No.519890 dated 24.04.2009 for Rs. 10,20,000/-, which on presentation for encashment was returned back with the remarks ‘account closed’. Legal notice was served. When the amount was not paid, then the complaint was filed within time.

4. In the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused took the plea that no cheque was issued by him to the complainants Amrit Kaur and Ranbir but the cheque No.519890 was given by him as a security which has been misused by the complainants. In defence, accused examined DW- 1 Krishan, DW-2 Prem Kanwar and examined himself as DW-3.

5. Learned JMIC, Bahadurgarh, after appreciating the evidence, dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused-respondent vide impugned judgment dated 30.03.2013.

6. Aggrieved from the above-said judgment, present appeal along with application for grant of leave to appeal has been filed.

7. Notice of the application was issued. Learned counsel for the respondent appeared and contested the petition.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

9. The perusal of the findings given by learned Magistrate shows that these have been given as per evidence and law. In no way, the findings can be held as perverse or against the evidence and law. Nothing has been pointed out as to which material evidence has been misread and which material evidence has not been considered by the Court below. Nothing has been pointed out as to how the findings are perverse or against the law and what illegality has been committed by learned Court below.

10. From the record, first of all, I find that huge amount of Rs. 10,20,000/- was given by the complainants to the accused but no security document has been taken nor even receipt was taken from the accused. Even the date has not been mentioned as to when this amount has been given. There is no document on the record to show this loan transaction. There is also no evidence of withdrawing the amount from the bank etc. It is admitted at the time of arguments that Krishan Kumar is close relative of the complainants. The agreement to sell has been placed on the record which shows that there was some agreement or dealing regarding purchase of property etc. between the parties. I have gone through the document Ex.D1 which has been duly proved. In this agreement dated 29.06.2010, it is specifically written that the cheques given by Umed Singh (present accused) to Amrit Kaur, will be treated as cancelled and on the basis of those cheques, Amrit Kaur will not pursue any proceedings. This agreement was duly signed by Krishan Kumar. This document further supports the defence version.

11. Furthermore, if the loan was given on 1% interest, then there should be some pronote or any written document to show this loan transaction. The accused has raised probable defence, which is dul