D.GOPALA KRISHNAN Vs. R.J.VEERAGAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 29.11.2018 made in C.C.No.3777 of 2016 on the file of the learned Fast Track Court Magisterial Level No.1, Egmore, Allikulam, Chennai.

(2.) The appellant herein is the complainant filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C against the respondent/accused for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.I, Egmore, Chennai. After taking cognizance of the complaint in C.C.No.3777 of 2016 and completing the formalities, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint and acquitted the respondent. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the complainant preferred the present appeal before this Court.

(3.) The case of the appellant is that the appellant and the respondent jointly started a construction business in the year 1995 and the appellant has invested huge sum as principal and promoted five projects. However, the appellant had not received any money either principal or profit from the said five projects. It is further stated that the respondent had orally promised that they can enter into a partnership deed. After investments and hard work put into by the appellant, the respondent had given many reasons for postponing the execution of the partnership deed and also wantonly avoid to enter into the agreement. Hence, the appellant decided to quit from the business and worked out his share of profits as Rs.2.30 crores and requested the respondent to pay his due share. It is further stated that after some negotiations, the respondent agreed to pay a sum of Rs.75 lakhs, since the last cheque was dishonored, only Rs.50 lakhs was realized. The complainant has further stated that in part settlement of remaining balance of Rs.1.80 crores, the respondent issued 3 post dated cheques, each for a sum of Rs.25 lakhs. When the cheque bearing No.503905, dated 31.07.2007 was presented for collection, it was realized and the cheque bearing No.503904, dated 31.8.2007 was presented for collection, it was returned as 'Payment stopped by drawer' vide memo dated 01.09.2007. The complainant again deposited the same cheque for collection and again it was returned as 'Funds Insufficient' vide memo dated 06.09.2007. Hence, the appellant issued a statutory notice on 14.09.2007. The respondent received the said notice and sent a reply and the complainant also sent a rejoinder to the accused. Hence, the complainant claims that the accused has failed to repay the cheque amount, he preferred the complaint before the trial Court.