SURINDER KUMAR Vs. AARTI PURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complainant Aarti Puri had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against Surinder Kumar, his wife Seema Aneja, son Aman Aneja and Lekh Raj Aneja on the allegations that accused were acquainted with the complainant and they had been doing business of footwear and since son of complainant was not performing well in his business of shuttering, the accused suggested to complainant that he should also start business of footwear; at the asking of the accused, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.50 lakhs to them in cash, however, accused did not take the necessary action in the matter and kept putting it off; when the complainant asked them either to execute the MOU or to return the money, then they issued a cheque in favour of the complainant in the sum of Rs.50 lakhs giving an assurance that it would be encashed; the complainant presented the cheque with her banker Punjab National Bank, which sent it for clearance to the banker of the accused but it was returned uncashed due to insufficiency of funds in account of the accused and complainant was informed accordingly vide memo dated 6.4.2011; thereafter the complainant served a legal notice dated 20.4.2011 upon the accused calling upon them to make the payment of the cheque amount within 15 days of receipt of notice but to no effect, as such, she filed a complaint in question in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana.

(2.) After recording preliminary evidence, the accused were summoned. They had put in appearance and were granted bail. Notice of accusation under Section 138 of the Act was served upon them, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(3.) During the course of her evidence, the complainant got her own statement recorded as CW1 besides examining Anand Khosla as CW2 and HC Palwinder Singh as CW3.