The complainant failed to establish a legally enforceable debt under Section 138 NI Act, leading to acquittal.

JUDGMENT

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. Criminal Appeal under Section 378(4) read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the Appellant challenging the impugned Judgment dated 29.07.2020 vide which the learned MM, N.I. Act has acquitted the Respondent for an offence under Section 138 NI Act.

2. Briefly stated, the Petitioner/M/s Celebrations through its proprietor Mr. Sumit Batra filed a Complaint under Sections 138 /142 NI Act. It is submitted that Mr. Sumit Batra was running its business from Shop No.2, Mini Central Market, DDA Flats, Kalkaji, New Delhi. The Respondent/Accused informed the Complainant that she was running Portfolio Management Scheme for which she collects money from small investors and after conducting thorough research, invests the money in shares of Blue Chip Companies through Stock Market. She assured minimum return of 10% per month on sum invested. He, induced and deceived by such representations of the Respondent, gave Rs.7,50,000/- from 22.08.2017 till 04.09.2017 to the Respondent for investing in stock market under Portfolio Management Scheme. On 21.09.2017, Respondent credited a sum of Rs.75,000/- in his account for the month of September, 2017, but thereafter, she failed to give any return/profit to him.

3. On his repeated demand to return the money, the Respondent issued a cheque No.820783 dated 25.06.2018 for Rs.7,50,000/- drawn on IDBI Bank, CR Park, New Delhi. However, on presentation the said cheque was dishonoured with the remarks ‘Funds Insufficient’ vide Cheque Return Memo dated 27.06.2018. The Complainant gave Legal Notice dated 11.07.2018 to the Respondent at her correct residential address, but she manoeuvred to get it returned with remarks ‘house found locked and left’.

The Appellant then filed the Complaint under Section 138 NI Act.

4. The Respondent appeared before the Court on receiving the summons. Notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. was framed in response to which she admitted her signatures on the cheque, but took the defence that she had taken a loan of Rs. 1,44,500/- from the Complainant and had given five blank cheques as security, one of the cheque being the impugned cheque which has been misused by the Complainant. She further asserted that she has already paid much more than the Loan amount and there is no outstanding liability.

5. The complainant in support of his assertions, appeared as CW-1 and asserted that that he had given the loan of Rs.7,50,000/- to the Respondent out of which Rs.4,44,500/- had been given by cheque, while the remaining amount had been given in cash.

6. He also examined CW-2 Malavika Sharma, Senior Manager, Federal Bank Ltd. G. K. II, New Delhi, who proved the Statement of Account of the Complainant for the period 20.08.2017 to 10.09.2017, which was Ex. CW-2/1 and Ex. CW-2/2 respectively.

7. The statement of the Respondent was recorded under Section 281 read with Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein she reiterated that she had taken Loan of Rs.1,44,500/-, which has been returned by her to the Complainant. She appeared as DW-1 and reiterated her defence. She also exhibited her Statement of Accounts as Ex. DW-1/A to corroborate that she had repaid the entire loan amount to the Complainant. She also deposed that a cheque of Rs.3,00,000/- was deposited by the Complainant in her account for the Tax saving purpose, but had been withdrawn by him. She has made the Complaint Ex.DW-1/B to the Police against the Complainant.

8. Learned M.M. considered the evidence as led by both the parties and concluded that the Respondent had fairly discharged h