LAWS(KAR)-2023-7-1278

CHEPUDDIRA POONACHA MUTHANNA Vs. BITFOX ENTERPRISES

Decided On July 17, 2023
Chepuddira Poonacha Muthanna Appellant
V/S
Bitfox Enterprises Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the complainant, challenging the dismissal of the complaint filed by him against respondents/accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of N.I.Act, contending that the cheques issued by the respondents/accused towards repayment of legally recoverable debt came to be dishonored. After issuing legal notice and on failure of respondents/accused to pay the amount due, he filed complaint under Sec. 200 Cr.P.C. The trial Court posted the matter for sworn statement of complainant. Due to his ill health, complainant could not appear before the Court and record his sworn statement. On 10/2/2023, the trial Court dismissed the complaint for default. The absence of complainant was not intentional. If the complaint is not restored, complainant would be put to great hardship and prays to allow the appeal.

(2.) Heard arguments and perused the record.

(3.) It is the case of the complainant that respondents being the Directors/Proprietors/Authorized representative of M/s Bit Fox Enterprises are wholesale purchasers of I-phones. Their business method is to take investments from individuals, purchase I-phones at wholesale rates and sell to retail dealers with huge profit. With that profit, money invested be returned along with goods such as washing machines, laptops, computers, electronic items, mobile phones, two wheelers and cars or cash back schemes. In this regard complainant invested Rs.5..00 lakhs, which was promised to be repaid with profit of Rs.50,000.00. During 2020, complainant expressed his interest in purchasing a car worth Rs.48.00 lakhs. He was promised that accused would arrange for a cash back in a month and delivery of car within two months. Accordingly, complainant remitted Rs.48.00 lakhs. However, accused have neither returned the money nor delivered the car. When insisted upon, accused have issued cheque for Rs.48.00lakhs, under the signature of accused No.1. However, when presented, the same was dishonored for insufficient funds.