Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pardeep vs Abhishek Khurana on 4 March, 2024
Author: Manjari Nehru Kaul
Bench: Manjari Nehru Kaul
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
263
2024:PHHC:031822
CRM-A-936-2019
Date of decision: March 4th, 2024
Pardeep
.....Applicant
Versus
Abhishek Khurana
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Present: Mr. Raghav Sharma, Advocate
for the applicant.
MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J.
The applicant-complainant (hereinafter referred to as
'complainant') is impugning the judgment dated 26.02.2019 passed by
the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Panipat, whereby
respondent-accused (hereinafter referred to as 'accused') was acquitted
of the charges framed against him in a criminal complaint i.e.
CIS No.NACT-2068 of 2017 filed under Section 138 of The Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
2. As per the allegations levelled in the complaint, the
accused borrowed a friendly loan of `5 lakh from the complainant in
August, 2014 for five months. After repeated requests made to the
accused for repayment of the said loan, he issued a cheque bearing
No.511212 dated 22.06.2017 (Exhibit C2) for `5 lakh in favour of the
complainant. On presentation of the cheque by the complainant, it was
returned vide return memo dated 27.06.2017 (Exhibit C3) with the
remarks "drawer's signatures differ". The complainant thereafter sent a
legal notice dated 07.07.2017 calling upon the accused, to make the
payment but in vain.
3. The learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence and
other material led, acquitted the accused by holding that the
complainant had miserably failed to prove his case against the accused
as no evidence much less cogent was led by the complainant to prove
the existence of a legally enforceable debt, whereas the accused, on the
other hand, had been able to successfully rebut the presumption under
Section 139 of the Act.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant has
reiterated the allegations levelled in the complaint in question by
asserting that the accused had borrowed a sum of `5 lakh from him.
He has submitted that the trial Court had failed to appreciate that once
the accused had not disputed his signatures on the cheque in question,
therefore, a presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act arose in
favour of the cheque holder, and mere non-disclosure of the said loan in
his Income Tax Returns could not have been an adequate ground to
throw out the case of the complainant. It has been further submitted that
the trial Court had ignored settled law by drawing an adverse inference
against the complainant on the ground that there was no written
agreement executed between the parties with respect to the alleged
transactions.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused
the relevant material on record.
6. The complainant failed to provide any documentary
evidence much less any written agreement to prove the alleged advance
of `5 lakh as loan to the accused. It is indeed very strange that the
complainant claimed to have given the loan in cash without any witness
being present at the relevant time. While the complainant stated that he
had withdrawn the amount from his bank and then given it to the
accused, the bank statement (Exhibit C5) only showed a
self-withdrawal, and not any transfer of the loan to the accused.
Additionally, during his cross-examination, the complainant admitted
to never visiting the house of the accused nor being a resident of the
same village, making it highly unnatural and unlikely for him to lend
money to the accused without any documentation or in the absence of
any witness.
7. As a sequel to the above, this Court concurs with the
observations made by the learned trial Court that in the absence of a
written loan agreement, coupled with the failure of the complainant to
establish the loan advancement, the accused had successfully presented
a plausible defence by rebutting the presumptions under Sections 118-B
and 139 of the Act. The complainant was unsuccessful in proving that
the cheque in question was issued to settle a legally enforceable debt.
8. The application stands dismissed.
March 4th, 2024 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
Puneet JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No
