MUSKAN CONTRACTORS Vs. MAYUR BAJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed calling in question the order dtd. 13/05/2024 (Annexure P/1) passed by the JMFC, Raipur, C.G. in Complaint Case No.5581/2022 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Sec. 91 of the Cr.P.C. for calling of the documents has been rejected on the ground that the said documents are not related to the case.

(2.) The brief facts of this case are that the respondent has filed a complaint case under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 before the learned JMFC, Raipur alleging that the Respondent complainant has lent an amount of Rs.22,00,000.00 (Rs.Twenty Two Laksh) by way of RTGS & NEFT on different dates from 13/10/2021 & 30/10/2021 to the petitioners. It is further alleged that the petitioners had assured the respondent to return the said amount till 15/03/2022 but they failed to repay the said amount. On continuous demand being raised by the respondent, Petitioner No.2 on 31/03/2022 entered into one consent letter and gave a cheque bearing No.035339 dtd. 31/07/2022 of a sum of Rs.14,00,000.00 and for the remaining amount of Rs.8,00,000.00 the petitioners had assured that the same will be paid till April. Thereafter, when the respondent presented the aforesaid cheque for encashment in his bank account, the said cheque got dishonoured with an endorsement "in sufficient fund" on 06/08/2022.

(3.) The respondent thereafter sent a legal notice through his counsel on 04/09/2022 to the petitioners to which the petitioners replied on 22/09/2022 and in the said reply the petitioners denied to repay the loan amount. Thereafter, the respondent filed a complaint case before the JMFC, Raipur and the JMFC registered the said complaint case and issued notices/summons to the petitioners. On issuance of notice, the petitioners marked their appearance before the trial Court and got the bail and also received the documents which have been filed by the complainant/respondent. On perusal of the documents it was felt by the petitioners that the respondent has filed the false complaint against them because the amount so alleged in the complaint case has been paid in respect of the purchasing of the land of the petitioners, for which the agreement has been entered.