Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kailash Chandra vs Prabhakar Jha on 8 July, 2021
Bench: Sandeep Mehta
(1 of 3) [CRLLA-456/2017]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Crml Leave To Appeal No. 456/2017
Kailash Chandra S/o Sh. Ramdayal, By Caste Brahmin, Resident
Of 4-Ka-33, Madhuban Colony, Basni, First Phase, Jodhpur Raj.
----Appellant
Versus
Prabhakar Jha S/o Jainandan Jha, By Caste Brahmin, Resident Of
5-A-55, Saraswati Bhojnalay, Bye-Pass Road, Kuri Bhagtasni
Housing Board, Jodhpur Raj..
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pradeep Shah
Mr. C.S. Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.R. Choudhary, P.P.
Mr. Rameshwar Hedau
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Order
08/07/2021
The applicant complainant has approached this court
through this application under Section 378 (4) CrPC seeking leave
to file an appeal against the judgment dated 30.05.2017 passed
by the learned Special Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases)
No.2, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Regular Criminal Case
No.5877/2016 (419/2015), whereby the respondent was acquitted
from the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
submissions advanced by Mr. Pradeep Shah, learned counsel
representing the applicant complainant, and Mr. Rameshwar
Hedau, learned counsel representing the respondent, and have
gone through the impugned judgment and the record.
(2 of 3) [CRLLA-456/2017]
The disputed cheque was drawn for a sum of
Rs.8,86,000/-. The complaint was filed against respondent
Prabhakar Jha and one Shiv Prakash Gotwal. The complainant
alleged in his complaint that he was on friendly terms with both
the accused. The respondent Shiv Prakash executed an agreement
for sale of a plot in favour of the complainant for a consideration
of Rs.7,01,000/-. However, as it finally came to light that the
accused did not own the plot, they assured the complainant to
provide him an alternative plot. Thereafter yet another agreement
was got executed in favour of the complainant by a man named
Bhera Ram, but the said transaction also failed. Thereupon, the
accused Prabhakar Jha agreed to indemnify the complainant and
paid him a cash amount to the tune of Rs.25,000/- and the
balance amount of Rs.8,86,000/- was agreed to be paid through
the disputed cheque, which upon presentation was dishonoured on
account of insufficient funds. The accused Prabhakar Jha took a
specific defence in the trial that the entire transaction, which was
bone of contention between the parties, was executed between
the complainant and Shiv Prakash, who conspired and the cheque
of the respondent Prabhakar Jha, which was lying with Shiv
Prakash was misused in collusion.
After appreciating the evidence available on record, the
trial court came to a conclusion that as a matter of fact, all the
land transactions which were made foundation of the legal liability
by the complainant in his complaint were undertaken between him
and Shiv Prakash. There was never any transaction between the
complainant and the respondent accused Prabhakar Jha, which
could have made him liable for honouring the cheque in question.
(3 of 3) [CRLLA-456/2017]
After threadbare appreciation of the evidence available
on record, I am of the firm opinion that the view taken by the trial
court while acquitting the respondent from the offence under
Section 138 CrPC is plausible and that the impugned judgment
does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or perversity
whatsoever warranting interference therein. Hence, there is no
ground to grant leave to the applicant-complainant for filing an
appeal against the impugned judgment dated 30.05.2017 passed
by the learned Special Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases)
No.2, Jodhpur Metropolitan.
Hence, the instant application seeking leave to appeal
is dismissed as being devoid of merit.
(SANDEEP MEHTA),J
69-Pramod/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
