well known to the complainant and, being in financial need, requested a loan ₹

of 9,90,000 in October 2012. Considering their relationship, the complainant advanced the said amount as a loan to the accused in the first week of October 2012, for six months. Upon repeated requests and demands made by the appellant/complainant for repayment, the accused, in discharge of his liability, issued a cheque bearing No. 000025 dated 01.05.2013, drawn on Kotak ₹

Mahindra Bank, Branch Office SCF 108, Phase 3, B2, Mohali, for 9,90,000/. However, when the complainant presented the cheque for encashment on 20.05.2013, it was dishonoured with a return memo dated 21.05.2013 from HDFC Bank Limited, having the remark "INSUFFICIENT FUNDS." Thereafter, the complainant served a legal notice to the accused through registered AD, dated 25.05.2013 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 420 IPC. Despite receiving a legal notice dated 25.05.2013, the accused failed to make the payment within the stipulated period and therefore, the present complaint was filed.

3. It is contended that the judgment passed by the trial Court suffers from grave illegality, perversity and the same is ba