TULU RANI DAS (MAJUMDER Vs. PRABIR MAJUMDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) T. Amarnath Goud, J 1. This Criminal revision petition has been filed under Sec. 397(1) of Cr.P.C. read with Sec. 401 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dtd. 17/2/2020, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, in Crl. Appeal No.42/2017, dismissing the appeal under Sec. 378(2) of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dtd. 22/11/2017, passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judical Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala in Case No. NI-79/2012, whereby acquitting the respondent-Prabir Majumder, from the charges framed under Sec. 138 of NI Act, 1881.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief, which may be relevant for the present purpose and manifest on the record are that the petitioner herein lodged a complaint under Sec. 138 of the NI Act, 1881 against the respondent No.1. In the complaint, the petitioner stated that she, her brother Dulal Das, and Sister Jhulu Rani Das were the joint owner of land measuring 2.09 acres under R.S. Khatian No.113 Mouja-Guarchand, and the accused person herein as the respondent agreed to purchase the land. After negotiation, the price was settled to Rs.5,00,000.00. The petitioner and two others executed 3(three) sale deeds in favour of the respondent herein and those sale deeds were presented before the Sub-Registrar, Sabroom for registration. Due to objection raised by one Pulak Das, Sub-Registrar refused to register the sale deeds and the matter was brought to the notice of the District Registrar for his opinion. For this reason, the sale deeds were pending for registration. Then the respondent No.1 requested the petitioner to return Rs.5,00,000.00 on the condition that, he would repay the same amount at the time of registration. Accordingly, the complainant returned the said amount of Rs.5,00,000.00 to the accused on 15/11/2011 in cash as against the swearing of one affidavit by the accused. After some time, District Registrar directed the Sub-Registrar, Sabroom to make registration of those 3(three) sale deeds. Thereafter, on 29/2/2012, the respondent through his Manager sent Rs.1,00,000.00 in cash and issued one account payee cheque bearing No.116007, dtd. 29/2/2012, issued by the respondent in her favour for encashment to the Branch Manager, SBI, Kunjaban Branch. Thereafter, the Branch Manager, SBI Kunjaba Branch sent the cheque to IDBI Bank Limited, Agartala Branch but the Branch Manager IDBI Bank, vide letter, dtd. 3/5/2012, informed the Branch Manager, SBI Kunjaban Branch, that, the cheque could not be honoured due to insufficiency of fund in the account of the drawer of the cheque. Thereafter, the petitioner on 25/5/2012, by registered letter with A.D. intimated him and demanded payment within 15 days. But the respondent No.1 did not make payment. On the contrary, after receiving the information of the dishonouring of the cheque by the Banker, the respondent issued a legal notice to the petitioner asking for the handover of the vacant possession of the land described in the sale deeds as per the commitment.

(3.) It is pertinent to mention here that, in the complaint, it was also stated that, in Civil suit bearing No.TS-25/2011 which was pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division in between Pulak Das and the Respondent and others, the respondent No.1 in a written statement stated that he purchased the land described in those sale deeds and he had got possession of the land.