RAJEEV KUMAR Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Counsels for the parties.

(2.) The said Complaint was filed by Complainant/Appellant under Sec. 138 of NI Act against Accused/Respondent No.2. The gravamen of the Complaint was that the father of the Complainant, Late Sh. Narain Dass and Accused were colleagues, working in the same Bank and Branch, when the Accused had approached the father of the Complainant for a Loan of Rs.3,50,000..00 The said interest-free Loan was advanced by the Complainant's father in about October 2011, and in discharge of its liability the Accused issued a Cheque for a sum of Rs.3,50,000.00 in the name of the father of the Complainant in January 2014, as refund of the Loan amount. However, subsequently, the father of the Complainant passed away in July 2014 before presenting the Cheque for encashment, after which Accused issued a new Cheque bearing No.201465, dtd. 31/12/2015 for a sum of Rs.3,50,000.00 ('the Cheque in question') in the name of the Complainant for repayment of the Loan amount. The Cheque in question, on presentation, was dishonoured twice with the remarks "funds insufficient" vide separate Return Memos, dtd. 3/3/2016 & 9/3/2016. Thereafter, pursuant to Legal Notice, dtd. 15/3/2016, the said Complaint was lodged under Sec. 138 of NI Act.

(3.) Pre-summoning evidence was led by the Complainant and upon finding a prima facie case against the Accused, he was summoned vide Order, dtd. 27/4/2016. The Metropolitan Magistrate ('MM') dismissed the Complaint vide the impugned Order and acquitted the Accused of the offence under Sec. 138 of NI Act by holding that in the present case the debt was not legally recoverable due to limitation. The relevant observation made by the MM is reproduced hereunder: