VIKASH GOYAL Vs. VIJAY KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent had faced the trial in a complaint filed by the applicant under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 qua dishonour of cheque dated 2.9.2012 in the sum of 1,50,000.00. Trial Court vide judgment dated 17.4.2014 ordered the acquittal of the respondent. Hence, the present application under Sec. 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for leave to appeal by the complainant-applicant.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.

(3.) The Trial Court while ordering the acquittal of the respondent has held that the cheque in question was duly signed by the respondent. However, respondent had taken a specific stand that his signed cheque had been misused by the applicant. In this regard, learned Trial Court has noticed that the case of the applicant was that respondent was liable to pay him 1,50,000.00 towards spare parts purchased by him. However, as per FIR Ex. D1, registered at the instance of the brother of the applicant, 1,50,000.00 had been taken in cash by the respondent from Manish (brother of the complainant) regarding which some dispute had arisen between the parties. Thus, in the FIR, a different stand had been taken by the brother of the applicant, whereas the applicant had taken a different stand in the complaint filed by him. Further, the applicant had failed to prove on record any document to the effect that respondent had purchased spare parts from him. The case of the applicant was that the respondent had taken away all the documents of transaction on 21.8.2012 by entering his shop and FIR in this regard was registered. However, in FIR Ex. D1, there was no allegation that the documents qua transaction had been taken away by the respondent. Learned counsel for the applicant has failed to point out any misreading of evidence by the Trial Court which would warrant interference by this Court. Learned Trial Court had, thus, rightly came to the conclusion that the story put-forth by the applicant was doubtful.