SH. KULVINDER SINGH Vs. SH. GULAM MOINUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed under Sec. 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.') on behalf of the appellant assailing the order dtd. 29/10/2011 passed by the Senior Civil Judge-cum Rent Controller, North-West Rohini Court Delhi in CC No. 1064/2009, whereby, a complaint under Sec. 200 of the Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 has been rejected by the said court.

(2.) The facts of the case are that appellant (hereinafter referred as 'complainant') was in friendly terms with one Ramesh Chand and the respondent (hereinafter referred as 'accused'). It is the case of the complainant that on or around 5/11/2005, the accused approached the complainant with a request for a friendly loan of Rs.50,000.00. The complainant considering the request to be genuine, offered him a friendly loan of Rs.50,000.00 on 6/11/2005. It is also the case of the complainant that on 6/5/2006, the accused again visited the complainant and had requested for a further financial assistance of Rs.20,000.00, which was again extended by the complainant towards friendly loan. It is thus the case of the complainant that a total sum of Rs.70,000.00 was given to the accused towards friendly loan and to assure the complainant the accused had given three cheques. The first cheque is dtd. 3/6/2006 for a sum of Rs.25,000.00, the second cheque is of the same date for the same amount and the third cheque is of Rs.20,000.00.

(3.) It is stated that the complainant had to defer the presentation of the cheques on an assurance given by the accused. It is the case of the complainant that on 11/7/2006, he received a notice on behalf of the accused that the cheques in question were given towards security against the committee run by the complainant. The complainant stated that before he could receive the notice he had already presented the cheques for encashment on 11/7/2006 which were returned unpaid by the bank of the accused with the remark of 'FUNDS INSUFFICIENT'. A legal notice of demand was issued on 14/7/2006, which was served on the accused and thereafter, a complaint in question has been filed.