Dishonour of Cheque – Friendly Loan – Complainant not aware of basic information of accused – Genesis of complaint that it was friendly loan not proved – Acquittal upheld.

Mr. Inderjit Singh, J.- Applicant-Amit Mahajan has filed this application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. seeking permission for leave to appeal against respondent Romesh Kumar Goel, challenging the impugned judgment dated 29.04.2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panchkula, 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, complainant Amit Mahajan filed a complaint against accused Romesh Kumar Goel under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. As per complainant’s version, accused had friendly relations with the complainant and approached him for a loan of Rs.1 lakh, which was advanced to him. Accused assured to return at the earliest. It is also the case of the complainant that accused issued cheque bearing No.875370 dated 22.07.2014 amounting to Rs.1,00,000/-, in favour of complainant, which on presentation for encashment, was returned back dishonoured with the remarks ‘payment stopped by drawer’. Legal notice was served. When the amount was not paid, then the complaint was filed within time.

4. The complainant examined himself as CW-1 and closed the evidence. At the close of complainant evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C and he was confronted with the evidence. He denied all the incriminating evidence against him. The accused further stated that he had no friendly relations with the complainant on any occasion nor he obtained any loan from him. He further deposed that he replied instantly to the notice. The cheque in question pertains to his account and he got stopped the payment thereof, as he had apprehension that the complainant might misuse his cheque. The cheque was given to the complainant as he wanted to buy a property and deal was fixed at Rs.90 lakhs. The deal was arrived at on oral basis in the office of the complainant. The cheque in question was given as a token, however, deal could not mature. The accused also stated that the complainant refused to return the cheque and then he asked the bank to stop the payment and also issued notice to the complainant. The complainant presented the cheque to the bank for wrongful gain. Accused also examined DW-1 Varun Sahni and DW-2 Sayam Kumar.

5. Learned JMIC, Panchkula, after appreciating the evidence, acquitted the accused-respondent vide impugned judgment dated 29.04.2016.

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

7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have gone through the record.

8. 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. At the time of arguments, 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.

9. The perusal of the record shows that in the complaint, no date, month and year has been mentioned as to when the loan was advanced. No particulars of any type have been mentioned in the complaint as to whether the amount was paid in cash or by cheque. There is no averment that at which place and in whose presence the loan was advanced. No receipt or any security document was got executed at the time of advancing the loan. Furthermore, there is no document to show the loan transaction. All these facts support the defence version of the accused.

10. Moreover, case of complainant is that he has friendly relations with the accused but learned Court below, after discussing the evidence, held that the complainant has no