Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ramanpreet vs Tek Chand on 15 April, 2024
Author: Mahabir Singh Sindhu
Bench: Mahabir Singh Sindhu
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050322
CRM-A No.926-MA of 2015 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:050322
243
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-A No.926-MA of 2015 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 15.04.2024
Ramanpreet
......... Applicant/Appellant
Versus
Tek Chand
......... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU
Present:- None for the applicant/appellant.
****
MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU, J.
Present application has been filed under Section 378 (4) Cr.P.C.
seeking leave to appeal against the impugned judgment dated 01.04.2015,
passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh (for short 'JMIC'),
vide which respondent has been acquitted from the allegations leveled against
him.
(2) It transpires that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 was filed against the respondent regarding cheque
No.301818 dated 15.09.2011 for an amount of Rs.4,01,250/-, which was
dishonoured. Learned JMIC after taking into consideration the material
available on record framed two points for consideration, which are as under:-
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050322
CRM-A No.926-MA of 2015 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:050322
1. Whether accused issued cheque in question for repayment of
friendly loan of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest?
2. Whether accused is guilty for commission of offence
punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act?
(3) While dealing with point No.1 in para 16 of the impugned
judgment, learned JMIC observed as under:-
"xxxxxx
The accused, in order to rebut that presumption, need to raise
a probable defence and to substantiate the same on the touchstone
of preponderance of probabilities. In instant case, accused has
raised a specific defence, which is successfully substantiated to
the satisfaction of an ordinary prudent person. In the facts and
circumstances of present case, any man of common prudence is
bound to act on the supposition that accused never took a loan of
₹ 4,00,000/- from complainant and further that the cheque was
not drawn by accused for an amount of ₹ 4,01,250/- for
repayment of friendly loan. The accused has raised serious doubts
on the prosecution story, which have remained unanswered on the
part of complainant. First point of determination is accordingly
answered in favour of accused and against complainant."
(4) In view of the aforesaid opinion on point No.1, point No.2 was
decided against the complainant.
(5) Case called twice, but no one is appearing on behalf of the
applicant/appellant.
(6) In view of the above, it seems that applicant/appellant is not
interested in pursuing the present matter.
(7) As a result thereof, there is no option except to dismiss the
application seeking leave to appeal for non-prosecution.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050322
CRM-A No.926-MA of 2015 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:050322
(8) Ordered accordingly.
(9) Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.
15th April, 2024 ( MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU )
Gagan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
