Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sadiq Khan vs Raj Kumar Sharma on 7 April, 2025
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16871
1 CRA-5467-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 7 th OF APRIL, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5467 of 2024
SADIQ KHAN
Versus
RAJ KUMAR SHARMA
Appearance:
Shri A.K. Gupta - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri N.D. Patel - Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
This appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant under Section
378 (4) of the Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment of
acquittal dated 22.03.2024 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raisen,
District Rasen in SCNIA No.94/2020 whereby the trial Court has acquitted
the respondent/accused of the charges framed under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instrument Act.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the complaint filed
by the present appellant/complainant has been dismissed by the trial Court
vide order dated 22.03.2024. The complaint was filed in terms of Section
138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and it was specifically asserted in the
complaint that the respondent herein for his personal need, had borrowed a
sum of Rs.80,000/- on 22.11.2019 and had promised to return the same by
30.11.2019 and as the said amount was not repaid back to the present
appellant/complainant, he demanded the same. Then a cheque of Rs.50,000/-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16871
2 CRA-5467-2024
bearing no.102953 and another cheque of Rs.30,000/- bearing no.102955
were issued by the respondent/accused and both the cheques were
dishonored. It is contended by the counsel that it was prima facie established
by the present appellant/complainant that the said cheques were issued
towards some debt and enforceable liability and there was no occasion with
the Court to arrive at the contrary findings. It is also contended by the
counsel that the trial Court was required to appreciate that there existed a
presumption in terms of Section 138 and 139 of Negotiable Instrument Act,
and in the present case, the appellant/complainant was holder of the cheques,
therefore, the presumption existed in favour of the present
appellant/complainant. The said presumption in absence of any rebuttal,
ought to have been made basis to allow the complaint of the present
appellant/complainant. However, the trial Court vide impugned order dated
22.03.2024 proceeded to reject the said complaint. Therefore, counsel
submits that the present leave to appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be
allowed.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the said prayer and
submitted that there was no debt or enforceable liability on the contrary there
was transaction pertaining to sale of a plot. It is contended by the counsel
that the said transaction has been taken note of by the trial Court and the
factum of payment under the said transaction also finds mention in paragraph
11 of the cross-examination of the present appellant/complainant. Thus it s
contended by the counsel that while appreciating the aforesaid facts and
circumstances as well as evidence, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16871
3 CRA-5467-2024
complaint of the complainant.
4. No other point is argued or expressed by both the parties.
5. Heard the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties.
6. A perusal of the record reflects that the complaint has been
dismissed by the trial Court while observing that there was no debt or
enforceable liability. A perusal of paragraphs 10,11,12 as well as 18 of
cross-examination of present appellant/complainant reflect that the sale-deed
of the plot was executed after making of the entire payments and in
paragraph 11, the present appellant/complainant also stated that he came to
know about the respondent/accused, 2 to 4 days prior to the execution of
sale-deed. Therefore, the said admission of the present appellant/complainant
which finds mention in paragraph 11, was in conflict with the averments
made in the complaint as well as the affidavit pertaining to examination-in-
chief of the present appellant/complainant.
7. In the said affidavit as well as complaint, it was stated by the present
appellant/complainant that he was known to the respondent herein since long
and therefore, when the respondent/accused asked for loan the said amount,
the amount of Rs.80,000/- was given. The aforesaid averments apparently go
contrary to the paragraphs 11 and 12 of cross-examination of the present
appellant/complainant.
8. Thus, the trial Court while appreciating the testimony of the present
appellant/complainant himself, has arrived at the conclusion that there was
no legally enforceable debt or liability so as to bring the offence within the
four corners of Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16871
4 CRA-5467-2024
9. The said findings being based on the evidence and enriched with the
cogent reason, do not require any interference as there is no infirmity or
perversity in the impugned order dated 22.03.2024.
10. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to invoke powers under
Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C in the present case.
11. Resultantly, the present appeal stands dismissed.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
sp
