(1.) Aggrieved by the judgment dated 14 th March, 2016 whereby the learned Metropolitan Magistrate acquitted the respondent for offence punishable under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the petitioner/complainant has preferred the present leave petition.
(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that Baldev Malhotra, brother of respondent, entered into negotiation with husband of the petitioner to sell property bearing No. 1384/13, Khasra No. 93 measuring 42 square yard along with a shop bearing No. 1372/13 measuring 8 X 12 feet, Govindpuri, Kalkaji, New Delhi for a sum of Rs. 22 lakhs. Payment of Rs. 19.70 lakhs was made by the petitioner and her husband to respondent and her brother till 30th May, 2011. On 1st June, 2011, it came to the knowledge of the petitioner and her husband that the respondent and her brother have finalized to sell the aforesaid property to somebody else without consulting them. However, respondent and her brother agreed to return the amount by way of cheques and issued multiple cheques including cheque No. 328466 dated 5th June, 2011 for a sum of Rs. 1 lakh drawn on Canara Bank, Kalkaji, New Delhi. When the cheque was presented for encashment, the same was returned unpaid with remarks "account closed" vide returning memo dated 22nd July, 2011. On 6th August, 2011 the petitioner issued a legal notice through registered post and courier, however, the respondent failed to make the payment within stipulated time. Hence the present complaint was filed.
(3.) Notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. was framed against the respondent to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To substantiate the case, petitioner examined herself as CW-1 and lead her evidence by way of an affidavit Ex. CW-1/A and proved original cheque vide Ex. CW-1/1, returning memo vide Ex. CW-1/2 and copy of legal demand notice, postal receipts and AD card vide Ex. CW-1/3 to Ex. CW-1/6. During her cross examination she relied upon the photocopy of the sale deed Ex. CW1/D1 and a receipt Ex. CW1/D2.