Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ravi Kumar vs Anu on 21 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042075
2024:PHHC:042075
CRM-A-3767-MA-2018 1
224 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-A-3767-MA-2018
Date of Decision: 21.03.2024
RAVI KUMAR
...Applicant-Appellant
Versus
ANU
.......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. P.K. Bansal, Advocate
for the applicant-appellant
****
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
1. This instant application under Section 378(4) CrPC is preferred
against the order of acquittal dated 17.11.2018 passed by learned Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class, Ferozepur in criminal complaint No. NACT/812/2016
dated 04.10.2016 filed under Section 138/142 of Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 (herein after referred as NI Act) read with Section 420 IPC.
2. The minimal facts as necessary for disposing this application are
that in February, 2016, the respondent-accused borrowed a sum of
Rs.2,00,000/- from the applicant-complainant with a promise to return the said
amount within 4-5 months. Thereafter, in order to discharge to her legal
liability, the respondent issued a cheque bearing No.563481 for an amount of
Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on Bank of Baroda, Ferozepur, in favour of the petitioner.
When the petitioner presented the said cheque for encashment, it was
dishonoured vide memo dated 20.07.2016 bearing remarks 'Funds
Insufficient'. Subsequently, the petitioner served a legal notice dated
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042075
2024:PHHC:042075
16.08.2016 upon the respondent calling upon her to make the cheque payment
but she failed to pay the said cheque amount to the petitioner with the statutory
period. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the complaint (supra) before
the learned trial Court, wherein, the respondent was acquitted of the accusation
under Section 138 of the NI Act. Hence, the petitioner has approached this
Court by way of the present petition.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and after
perusing the record with his able assistance, it is clear that that the signatures
have been admitted by the respondent upon the cheque in question. However,
the applicant has miserably failed to show any financial capacity to advance a
loan of the abovesaid amount since the income tax returns of the applicant for
the years 2011-12, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 placed on record by him before
the learned trial Court clearly show that his total annual income for the
aforesaid years was Rs.1,58,000/-, Rs.1,69,500/- and Rs.2,09,700/-,
respectively. The applicant also admitted in his cross-examination that his two
children and his father are also dependent upon him. It is beyond imagination
that the applicant having financial capacity the extent mentioned above would
be able to lend such a huge amount to the respondent. Further, the applicant
was unable to place on record the sale deed dated 11.01.2013 of the property
sold by his father qua which he alleged that he had the sale consideration of the
aforesaid sale lying at his house which he gave to the respondent. As per the
version of the applicant, the sale consideration was obtained by his father in
2011 whereas he advanced the alleged loan in 2016, i.e., after 5 years of
obtaining the said sale consideration, leading this Court to disbelieve the
version of the applicant. Further perusal of the material on record shows that it
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042075
2024:PHHC:042075
was alleged by the applicant that the body of the cheque in question was filled
by the respondent herself but it is manifestly clear that it was not filled by the
same person who signed the said cheque. Resultantly, it appears that an
arbitrary amount was been filled by the applicant in order to misuse the cheque
of the respondent which was already in his possession already. All the
aforementioned facts clubbed together lead this Court to uphold the impugned
order of acquittal.
4. The power of the Appellate Court to unsettle the order of acquittal
on the basis of re-appreciation of the evidence is subject to the settled law that
where two views are possible and out of the two, one points towards the
innocence of the accused, the view which favours the accused should prevail
over the other pointing towards his guilt. Furthermore, the trial Court has the
additional advantage of closely observing the prosecution witnesses and their
demeanour, while deciding about the reliability of the version of prosecution
witnesses. (See H.D. Sundara and others Vs. State of Karnataka, Criminal
Appeal No.247 of 2011 decided on 26.09.2023; Kali Ram v. State of H.P.,
1973 (2) SCC 808 and Chandrappa and others v. State of Karnataka,
(2007) 4 SCC 415). A Division bench of this Court in the judgment passed in
State of Haryana Vs. Ankit and others CRM-A No.3 of 2022 decided on
06.07.2023 has held that presumption of innocence further gets entrenched on
the acquittal of accused by the trial Court.
5. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds
that learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has failed to point out any
perversity or illegality in findings recorded by the learned trial Court which
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042075
2024:PHHC:042075
warrants interference by this Court. As such, there is no merit in the present
application and hence, the leave to appeal is denied.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
21.03.2024
Ajay Goswami
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
