SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(P&H) 1616

AVNEESH JHINGAN
Manoj Kumar Singhla – Appellant
Versus
Hakim – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Parties : Mr. Umesh Pandey, Mr. M.M. Pandey

Table of Content
1. facts regarding the cheque and agreement. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. court observations on evidentiary burden and legal conclusions. (Para 5 , 8 , 9)
3. final conclusions on the dismissal of the appeal. (Para 6 , 10)

Judgment

Ms. Amarjot Bhatti, J.

This is an application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. seeking leave to appeal against judgment of acquittal dated 22.09.2021.

2. The facts in brief are that the applicant and the respondent for

starting a business executed an agreement on 21.10.2014 and respondent took an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-, further Rs.1,20,000/- was taken on different dates. For discharging the liability, the respondent issued a cheque bearing No.015080 dated 15.03.2015 for an amount of Rs.2,70,000/-, drawn on Central Bank of India, Ballabgarh, Faridabad. On presentation, the cheque was returned vide memo dated 20.03.2015 with remarks “funds insufficient”. After issuance of notice, on failure of the respondent to pay the amount the complaint was filed.

3. The respondent took a defence that two blank cheques including

the cheque in question were given to the complainant as security in pursuance to the agreement dated 21.10.2014. The reliance was placed upon agre

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top