Punjab-Haryana High Court
Santosh Kumar Chawla vs Ashok Kumar on 1 April, 2025
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:051060
CRM-A-1567-2023 1
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT
CHANDIGARH
258 CRM-A-1567-2023
Date of Decision: 01.04.2025
SANTOSH KUMAR CHAWLA
.....APPELLANT
VERSUS
ASHOK KUMAR
......RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Gaurav Vir Singh Behl, Advocate
for the Applellant.
****
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J
1. The application under Section 378(4) CrPC has been filed by the
appellant seeking leave to appeal against the judgment dated 09.08.2023 passed
by Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Rajpura (in short, 'the trial court'), vide which the
respondent has been acquitted in a complaint filed by the appellant under Section
138 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881( In short "the Act" ).
2. Briefly, facts of the case are that the Respondent-accused borrowed
a sum of Rs.2,80,000/- from the appellant-complainant on 13.09.2018 without
any interest as a friendly loan and when he was asked by the appellant to be
returned, the respondent issued a cheque bearing no. 641046 dated 01.10.2018
however when the cheque was presented for encashment, the same was returned
with the remark "e-SDPO invalid cheque". Aggrieved by the same, on
09.10.2018, a legal notice was issued by the appellant to the respondent to return
the amount with interest of 18% per annum.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:051060
3. Counsel for the appellant contends that the trial court has erred in
passing the judgment while ignoring the fact that C-2, Sh. Ashwani Kumar,
Senior Assistant Grain Market, SBI Branch, Rajpura had corroborated the fact
that there was no sufficient balance in the account of the respondent.
4. He vehemently argues that it has not been disputed by the
respondent that he has not signed the cheque in question rather according to his
version of the story, the said cheque was issued without mentioning the date but
there is no evidence which he has shown up to prove the same submission. The
respondent has rather taken the plea that he has given a loan of Rs.30,000/- to the
appellant's sister Ms Jyotsna and in lieu of the same had issued the cheque in
question but again the submission is vague as the dates between the issuance of
cheque and the loan given by the respondent to the Ms Jyotsna are quite different.
5. In addition, it is argued that the burden of proving that the cheque
had not been issued for discharge of lawful debt or liability is on the respondent
and if he fails to discharge this burden, then he must be convicted for the offence.
6. Heard.
7. Having heard the counsel for the appellant and going through the
case file, this court is of the considered opinion that there is no illegality or
infirmity in the judgment passed by the trial court wherein the appellant has
miserably failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the fact legal debt exists qua
the respondent.
8. From the perusal of the judgment by the trial court, it is evident that
the cheque in question Ex. C1 has not been filled in the handwriting of the
respondent. When it is a specific stand of the respondent that the cheque was
blank signed and it stands corroborated from the testimony of the appellant, the
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:051060
defense plea qua misuse of blank signed security cheque by filling the same
without the consent of the respondent, cannot be ruled out.
9. Moreover, the perusal of reply to legal notice sent by the respondent
same defence has been categorically stated in the said reply to the legal notice
and it has further been mentioned that State Bank of Patiala has already merged
into SBI, so question of receiving the cheque of State Bank of Patiala from the
respondent does not arise at all.
10. In addition, it has also been rightly observed by the trial court that
the alleged borrowing relates back to the year 2016 and the cheque of State Bank
of Patiala seems to have been issued at that very time and it is highly improbable
that an educated person like appellant would accept the cheque of State Bank of
Patiala in the year 2018 when the same has been merged with the State Bank of
India in the year 2017. Therefore, the defence of respondent qua the misuse of the
said security by the appellant cannot be ruled out.
11. In the light of above discussion, this court is of the strong view that
the appellant has miserably failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the
cheque in question has been issued in lieu of any legal liability. Hence no fault
can be found with the judgment passed by the trial court dated 09.08.2023 and as
such the present application under section 378(4) Cr.P.C stands declined as well
the appeal, having no merit stands dismissed.
12. Ordered accordingly.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
01.04.2025 JUDGE
Anuradha
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable :Yes/No
3 of 3
