IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 703 of 2025 Reserved on: 19.06.2025 Date of Decision: 04.07.2025.

Surinder Azad ...Applicant/appellant Versus Ms. Annu Kumari ...Non-applicant/Respondent Coram u Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

For the applicant/appellant : Mr. Prashant Pandey, Adv.

For thhe non-applicant/respondent: Nemo Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking leave to appeal against the judgment dated 14.01.2025, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P. (learned Trial Court) vide which the complaint under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I Act) filed by the petitioner (complainant before learned Trial Court) was dismissed. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present application are that the complainant filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court against the accused forf the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. It was asserted that the parties were known to each other. The accused required ₹1,30,000/- and she approached the complainant for a loan. The complainant handed over the money to the accused. The accused issued a cheque of ₹1,30,000/-to return the amount. The complainant presented the cheque to the bank, but it was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. The complainant served the notice upon the accused and asked her to pay the amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice, but in vain. Hence, the complaint was filed to take action against the accused.

3. The learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, a notice of accusation was put to her for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act, to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The complainant examined himself as CW1 to prove his case.

5. The accused, in her statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., stated that she had taken a loan of ₹1,00,000/-. She handed over tblank, signed cheques drawn in her account and the account of her mother. She admitted that the cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’. She admitted that she had received the notice. She claimed that she had paid the money through cash and a bank transahction. A false case was made against her. She examined Kalapna Mehta (DW-1) and Akshat Sharma (DW-2) to prove her defence.

6. The learned Trial Court held that the complainant admitted in his cross-examination the WhatsApp chat with the accused wherein he had stated that a sum of ₹1,00,000/- was advanced to the accused. He claimed that ₹30,000/- was advanced after the chat. This made his case highly doubtful. He could not recall the date of lending the amount. The complainant stated in his cross-examination that the money was to be returned in 1 -1 ½ months, whereas the complaint shows that the money was to be paid within 10 mo.nths. The complainant admitted that he was to take money from the accused, but failed to provide any explanation for issuing the notice to the mother of the accused. The accused had paid ₹10,000/- on 05.05.2021 and₹10,000/- on 27.07.2021, therefore, cheque of ₹1,30,000/- coulrd not have been presented. These circumstances made the case of the complainant suspect. Hence, the accused was acquitted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act.

7. Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court, the complainant has filed the present appeal, asserting that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is against the law and facts. The complainant had proved his case beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused admitted that she had is