SURINDER SINGH Vs. RAM DEV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed for setting aside the impugned judgment dtd. 15/1/2020 passed by JMIC Ferozepur, whereby the accused-respondent had been acquitted of the charges in a complaint filed under Ss. 138/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NI Act')

(2.) The learned counsel for the complainant (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) contends that the trial Court gravely erred in failing to appreciate the evidence adduced during the trial, thereby rendering the judgment liable to be set aside. It is argued that the accused (hereinafter referred to as the respondent), in collusion with his brother-in-law Amandeep and certain other individuals, intentionally deceived the petitioner by providing false assurances; the respondent, gave an undertaking, and assured the appellant that if a sum of Rs.1,20,000,00.00 was paid to the respondent's brother-in-law, he would secure employment for certain individuals in the Punjab Police. Acting upon this fraudulent assurance, an amount of Rs.1,20,000,00.00 was given to the respondent's brother-in-law. However, it soon became apparent that no such appointments were secured, and the petitioner realized that a fraud had been committed. Consequently, FIR No. 08, dated January 29, 2016, was registered under Ss. 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the respondent's brother-in-law and other accomplices for the offences of cheating and criminal conspiracy.

(3.) Following the registration of the FIR, the respondent approached the appellant and proposed a settlement, acknowledging the deceitful conduct. As part of this compromise, an affidavit dated April 05, 2016, was executed by the respondent. In furtherance of this settlement, the respondent issued a cheque dated October 05, 2016, for the sum of ?1,00,000 in favour of the appellant, ostensibly to discharge his legal liability. However, when the appellant presented the cheque for encashment, it was dishonoured on November 02, 2016, with the bank noting that the respondent's account had been closed. Despite the issuance of a legal notice on November 28, 2016, the respondent failed to remit the cheque amount within the statutory period, leading the appellant to pursue legal action.