Neeraj Wadhwani vs Arun Sharma
2023 Latest Caselaw 460 MP

                                                        1
                 IN         THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                            AT GWALIOR
                                              BEFORE
                           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
                                          ON THE 9 th OF JANUARY, 2023
                                       CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 516 of 2007

               BETWEEN:-
               NEERAJ WADHWANI S/O LATE SHRI VIKRAM
               WADHWANI, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
               BUSINESS, R/O J.A.H.HOSPITAL CAMPUS QR.NO.2,
               NEAR NURSING HOSTEL, LASHKAR, GWALIOR
               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                               .....APPELLANT
               (NONE FOR THE APPELLANT )

               AND
               1.          ARUN SHARMA S/O SHRI O.P.SHARMA , AGED
                           ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS, R/O I
                           9  CHETAKPURI,     JHANSI ROAD, GWALIOR
                           (MADHYA PRADESH)

               2.          NEERAJ SHARMA S/O SHRI O.P.SHARMA , AGED
                           ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O I-9 CHETAKPURI JHANSI
                           ROAD, DISTT.GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                            .....RESPONDENTS
               (BY SHRI ASHUTOSH PANDEY- ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENTS )

                           Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
               following:
                                                         ORDER

Appeal is pending since 2007.

Perused the record of the trial Court.

This appeal has been filed by the complainant under Section 378 of Signature Not Verified Cr.P.C. after taking leave of this Court against the judgment dated 5.2.2007 Signed by: MADHU SOODAN PRASAD passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Gwalior, in Criminal Case Signing time: 11-01-2023 10:55:25 AM

No.746/2005, whereby respondents have been acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Brief facts of the case are that appellant and respondent No.2 started a partnership firm on 14.5.1999. Thereafter they dissolved the said firm vide dissolution deed dated 16.3.2002. After execution of dissolution-deed, entire business was to be run by respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 had to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the appellant towards 50% cost of the business. Hence, respondent No.2 gave two cheques of Rs. one lac each to the appellant. The said cheques were of the account of respondent No.1-Arun Sharma and after taking signature of Arun Sharma in front of him, respondent No.2-Neeraj

Sharma handed over the same to the appellant. Payment of one of the cheque was received by the appellant within the time, but cheque No.977515 of Rs. One Lac when presented, it was returned with the note "payment stopped by the drawer". Thereafter appellant gave notice to the respondents, but even then, when payment was not received by him, he filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and adduced evidence.

The trial Court in para 12 of the impugned judgment discussed that dissolution deed (Ex.D/1) was executed between appellant Neeraj Wadhwani and respondent No.1- Arun Sharma, whereas on the disputed cheque (Ex.P/1) there is signature of respondent No.2- Neeraj Sharma in the capacity of Proprietor of Girraj Medical Store and on the date on which dissolution deed was executed, no amount of appellant or the firm was due on respondent No.2- Neeraj Sharma. It was further observed that disputed cheque was signed by respondent No.2-Neeraj Sharma and from the evidence of Signature Not Verified appellant/complainant it could not be proved that Neeraj Sharma has given the Signed by: MADHU SOODAN PRASAD Signing time: 11-01-2023 10:55:25 AM disputed cheque to the complainant on behalf of respondent No.1-Arun

Sharma. The appellant in his evidence has also admitted that he has not given any notice to the Proprietor of Girraj Medical Store. In view of the aforesaid, trial Court dismissed the complaint.

Having gone through the impugned judgment as well as record of the trial Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that trial Court has not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondents of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This appeal deserves to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed.

(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL) JUDGE ms/-

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MADHU SOODAN PRASAD Signing time: 11-01-2023 10:55:25 AM