RAJKUMAR BANSAL Vs. AUTO INFO MEDIA PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this present application for grant of leave to file appeal under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C, the applicant Rajkumar Bansal is aggrieved by the order of acquittal dated 23/06/2015, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore in criminal case no.8614/2009, acquitting the accused/respondent, Auto Info Media from charges under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, hence the application for grant of leave to file appeal.

(2.) Counsel for the applicant/complainant has vehemently urged the fact that there was a promissory note dated 09/08/2007, exhibit P-1 on record whereby it has been proved that the accused/respondent had taken Rs.3.00lakhs from the applicant/complainant and was bound to return the money and although the cheque was issued by Auto Info Media Pvt. Ltd., it was signed by the accused/respondent Pradeep Mishra. Counsel submitted that the notices were also properly issued and the dates on the envelope consistently on 21,24,25,26,27 February 2009, indicate that the notice has been sent and not accepted by the accused/respondent. Moreover, Counsel submitted that the applicant/complainant did not require to prove the transaction when the cheque has been issued legally against the recoverable debt.

(3.) Per contra, Counsel for the respondent had vehemently pointed out that the transaction was not established; the promissory note was not proved; and since the cheque had been issued by the company, which was not made a party initially and the order passed by the Trial Court was well reasoned order granting reasons and the notices were also not duly served on the accused/respondent. Relying on paragraph 13 of the judgment, Counsel vehemently urged that the transaction of loan was not established and the complainant had himself admitted in paragraph 10 of his deposition that three years prior to filing of the complaint, he had not given any loan to the accused nor had he instituted any proceedings against the accused/respondent. The frivolous and vexatious complaint had been filed and the loan has not been availed by the company according to the Counsel for the respondent and the applicant/complainant himself had denied that the promissory note was also not proved and the applicant /complainant admitted himself that at the time of filling the promissory note no money had been handed over and even at the time of handing over the cheque, money had not changed the hands. Under the circumstances, Counsel submitted that there was no infirmity in the order passed by the Trial Court and prayed for dismissal of the application.