SANJU RANI Vs. S A SURESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the complaint filed by the appellant under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'Cr.P.C'), against the present respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'N.I. Act'), the learned XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the 'trial Court') in C.C.No.10276/2008, pronounced the judgment of acquittal on 18.05.2010. It is against the said judgment of acquittal, the appellant/complainant has preferred this appeal.

(2.) The summary of the case of the complainant in the trial Court is that, herself and one Mrs. Rita Pandey, in order to run a guest house, approached the accused, who is owner of a house building at Domlur Village, Bengaluru who at their request, agreed to lease out a portion of his building in which regard, they entered into an agreement of lease on 01.08.2005. As per the said agreement, a lease amount of Rs..3,00,000/- was paid to the accused by the complainant as a security deposit. However, at the fault of the accused, the proposal did not materialize, for which the accused agreed to repay the lease amount. The accused paid only a sum of Rs..20,000/- out of Rs..3,00,000/- and agreed to pay the balance amount of Rs..2,80,000/- along with interest at 2% per month. Since even the said amount also could not be realised, the parties entered into one more agreement as per Ex-P7 whereunder, the accused agreed to pay a sum of Rs..3,20,000/- together with interest at the rate of 2% per month for the delayed payment, within two weeks from the date of agreement at Ex-P7. It is in that regard, since he failed to repay the amount as agreed, the complainant approached the jurisdictional Police and the same did not yield any result. However, the accused, at the persistence of the complainant, issued a cheque bearing No.19450 dated 25.02.2008 drawn on ICICI Bank, Indiranagar Branch, Bengaluru for a sum of Rs..3,50,000/- in favour of the complainant. According to the complainant, when the said cheque was presented for payment, it was dishonoured with an endorsement "Account closed". In that regard, the complainant also got issued a legal notice as required under Section 138 of N.I. Act to the accused, which returned with the postal endorsement "not claimed". Thus, it constrained the complainant to institute the case in the trial Court against the present respondent/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act.

(3.) In order to prove her case, the complainant got examined herself as PW-1 and got examined one Mrs. Rita Pandey as PW-2 and got marked the documents from Ex-P1 to Ex-P9(a). The accused got examined himself as DW-1 and examined one Sri S.N. Mahapatra, who is stated to be the husband of complainant, as DW-2. He got marked the documents at Exs-D1 and D2 from his side. After hearing both the side, the trial Court by its impugned judgment dated 18.05.2010, acquitted the accused of the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. It is against the said judgment, the complainant has preferred this appeal.