O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed against the judgment of acquittal made in C.C.No.109 of 2016 dated 27.01.2020 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Fast Track Court No.1 @ ML. Coimbatore. 2.According to the petitioner/complainant, she filed a complaint in C.C.No.109 of 2016 before the learned Judicial Magistrate Fast Track Court No.1 @ ML. Coimbatore under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (herein after referred to as 'NI Act') against the respondent/accused stating that she lent an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the accused for his business development during the period from 31.07.2013 to 02.06.2014, for which, the respondent issued a cheque bearing No.937417 dated 28.08.2015. When the cheque was presented for collection on 28.08.2015, the same was returned for the reason 'Funds Insufficient'. Hence, the petitioner issued a notice on 29.09.2015 to the respondent. The respondent also sent a reply, but, not paid the amount. Therefore, the petitioner filed a complaint in C.C.No.109 of 2016. After due enquiry, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint. Since, the accused was acquitted, the petitioner filed the present petition seeking to grant leave to file Appeal.

3. Granting leave to file appeal is not automatic and the petitioner has to show sufficient grounds to file appeal. Therefore, this Court gone through the entire records and inclined to dispose of the petition, as to whether the petitioner has got any ground to file the appeal.

4.1 The learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant would submit that the respondent/accused admitted the signature contained in the cheque. It is further stated that the complainant knew the accused through her sister one Sudha, who was working under the respondent/accused. Hence, the petitioner lent the amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. When, the cheque was presented for collection, the same was returned as 'Funds insufficient'.

4.2 During the trial, the respondent/accused raised his defence before the Court that he has not borrowed any amount as claimed by the petitioner and not issued any cheque in question in favour of the complainant. Further, the sister of the complainant one Sudha was working under the accused, at that time the said Sudha and one Balasubramaniam stolen the cheques of the accused and filed many cases through her relatives and friends including the petitioner herein. Hence, the respondent filed a complaint against Sudha and Balasubramaniam. However, the respondent has not filed any documents to show that he preferred a complaint before the police either for stolen or misplacement of his cheques. Further, the respondent has not explained how the cheque came to the hands of the petitioner. It is further stated that once the issuance of the cheque has been admitted, there is always a presumption in favour of the complainant. However, the learned Magistrate failed to consider the above facts and dismissed the same.

Hence, the same warrants interference of this Court.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Despite service of notice on the respondent and his name being printed in the cause list, there is no appearance either in person or through counsel.

6.Admittedly, the petitioner filed a complaint against the respondent/accused under Section 138 of N.I.Act before the learned Judicial Magistrate Fast Track Court No.1 @ ML. Coimbatore in C.C.No.109 of 2016. During the enquiry, in order to prove the case, the complainant/petitioner herself was examined as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P5. On the side of the accused/respondent no one is examined as witness.

7. Further, the respondent has taken his defence before the Trial Court that the petitioner did not have sufficient means to lend such a huge amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the respondent. Further, the petitioner also admitted that she is a housewife and earning income of Rs.5,000/- per month by her tailoring job. Apart from that, the husband of the petitioner also filed another complainant against th