RITESH CHOPRA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing the present petition, under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), the applicant has assailed the order dated 14.02.2013, passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patiala, dismissing the complaint and acquitting the accused of the charge framed against him under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the Act') and the order dated 04.06.2013, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Patiala, whereby the appeal filed by the applicant had been dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant contends that learned both the Courts below without appreciating the material facts on record have passed the impugned orders which is contrary to law. The learned Court of JMIC has not taken into consideration the fact that the respondent No.2 had issued a cheque bearing No. 016341 dated 15.09.2008 amounting to Rs. 60,000/- to discharge his liability which was dishonoured with the remarks 'account closed'. The applicant and respondent No.2 were known to each other and the applicant gave friendly loan of Rs. 78,000/- to respondent No.2. Out of total Rs. 78,000/-, Rs. 18000/- was given in cash whereas Rs. 60,000/- was given through cheque which the respondent No.2 failed to repay. The learned counsel further submits that the respondent No.2 had duly admitted the fact of borrowing Rs. 60,000/- and the cheque from the applicant, vide Annexure A-1. The Court of learned JMIC has also not taken into consideration the documents Ex. C1 to C9 which would establish the liability of respondent No.2 towards the applicant.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the complaint of the applicant. In fact the applicant being a Financer had advanced the loan to him in the year 2002, which stands repaid in instalments. At the time of raising the said loan, the applicant had taken five cheques from the respondent No.2 and the same have not been returned even after repayment of loan amount and the applicant has misused one of the cheque. The respondent No.2 had also moved a complaint on 12.09.2008 to the police in this regard. This clearly shows the mala fide intention of the applicant towards respondent No. 2.