NARAIN Vs. SHAILENDER KUMAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four leave petitions arise out of the separate judgments dated 18 th May, 2011 of the learned M.M. passed in four complaints being CC Nos. 113/2011, 110/2011, 112/2011 & 111/2011 under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). These petitions have been filed on behalf of Ghisa Ram (deceased) through attorney Laxmi Narain against the impugned judgments whereby the accused/respondent Shailender Kumar Sharma was acquitted by the learned M.M. in all the four complaints under Section 138 of the Act.

(2.) The aforesaid complaints were filed by Ghisa Ram and Laxmi Narain as complainants No. 1 and 2. The material facts as gathered from the record are that the complainant No. 1 in the complaint namely Ghisa Ram had filed a civil suit against the accused/respondent as well as one Om Prakash for possession, injunction and recovery of damages. During the pendency of the said suit, complainant No. 1 Ghisa Ram executed a General Power of Attorney dated 3.7.2003 in favour of the complainant No. 2 Laxmi Narain thereby authorizing him to file and obtain the possession as well as the damages from the opposite parties. The said suit came to be decreed vide order dated 12.8.2005 against accused Shailender Kumar Sharma, who was held liable to pay to the complainant Ghisa Ram a sum of L 5,06,600/- along with damages, interest and cost. Thereafter, the complainant No. 2 Laxmi Narain acting as attorney of complainant No. 1 Ghisa Ram filed an execution petition of the decree dated 12.8.2005. In execution of the said decree, the goods of accused were seized from his shop No. 24, Babu Market, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi. On the request made by the accused, complainant No. 2 agreed to accept a sum of L 3.50 lakhs towards full and final satisfaction of the decretal amount. Consequently, accused/respondent paid a sum of L 50,000/- in cash and issued four cheques of L 75000/- each in favour of the complainant No. 2, which on presentation, got dishonoured on account of 'Payment Stopped by Drawer". Since the respondent/accused failed to make payment after the statutory demand notice, the aforesaid four complaints were filed under Section 138 of the Act. The plea taken by the respondent/accused was that the blank cheques were obtained under coercion and that subsequently, the name of the complainant No.2 Laxmi Narain was filled. It was also his plea that a notice was issued to Laxmi Narain not to present the said cheques.

(3.) The Trial Court found the following facts to be not disputed between the parties: (1) That there was a decree dated 12.8.2005 in favour of complainant No.1 i.e. Ghisa Ram and against accused for possession and recovery of amount of L 5,06,600/-. (2) That the cheque in question bears the signatures of accused and it was issued towards satisfaction of decreetal amount. (3) That the cheque is in favour of Laxmi Narain i.e. complainant no.2 and not in favour of complainant no.1 (though as per accused, complainant no.2 dishonestly inserted his name as a payee). (4) That the cheque in question got dishonoured for the reason "Stop Payment Instruction" by the accused. (5) That the accused received demand notice from complainant no.2. (6) No payment was made by accused within stipulated time after receipt of demand notice.