PARMATMA MISHRA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel Mr. Mayank Mohit Sinha for the petitioner and Mr. Manoj Kumar for the accused/opposite party no. 2 and also the learned A.P.P. for the State.

(2.) Petitioner is seeking special leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 6th Sept. 2017 passed in Complaint Case No. 658/2013 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi whereunder the sole accused/opposite party no. 2 has been acquitted of the charges under section 138 of the N.I. Act.

(3.) As per the complainant's case, he had approached the accused person in July 2012 with an intention to marry his daughter Namrata Mishra. The marriage was settled after several rounds of meetings. Son of the accused was doing a job in WIPRO with a handsome salary. 11th March 2012 was fixed for the ring ceremony and bookings were made with mutual consent at Capitol Hill, Main Road, Ranchi towards which Rs. 40,000.00was expended. Ring ceremony was performed in the presence of near and dear ones with usual norms and rituals and valuable articles with Cash Rs. 51,000.00 were given to the groom. Date of marriage was fixed on 24th June 2012. Complainant was shocked to know later on that the groom was unavailable on the date fixed because his leave was not sanctioned. Again a marriage hall (Amaltash Banquet) at Ashok Nagar, Ranchi was booked which entailed further expenditure of Rs. 25,000.00 as advance. The revised date of marriage was 25th Nov. 2012. The complainant's daughter had before the revised date of marriage visited the groom at London and given advance accommodation booking charges of 3000 pounds as per his demand. She had also borne expenditure of 300 pounds on cooking items, utensils and appliances. As such she expended a sum of Rs. 2,87,100.00 towards the aforesaid purpose. Thereafter it came to the knowledge of the complainant and his daughter that the boy was in illicit relation with one Bangali girl Sangita Mazumdar, an office co-employee at INFOSYS, Kolkata. Realizing the mischievous acts and illicit relationship, he asked the boy to refund the entire amount that was directly or indirectly paid to him. Two post-dated cheques bearing no. 061777 dated 15th Nov. 2012 and bearing no. 061778 dated 15th Dec. 2012, each of the value of Rs. 2 lakh drawn at Axis Bank, Ranchi were issued. On presentation they were returned on 12th February 2013 with the remark "stopped payment". Thus, the accused persons had dishonestly resiled from their promise to pay the amount and thereby became liable for the offence under sections 138, 139 and 142 of the N.I. Act. The complainant also alleged loss of Rs. 7,85,000.00 for the purpose of marriage of his daughter with the boy including cash payments against due instalments of NBCC flat of the accused person situated at Rajarhat, Kolkata. However, the complainant did not get back the money towards the instalments of the flat. Accordingly, registered legal notice was issued upon them on 25th February 2013 for refund of the dishonoured cheques and other losses and expenditure but they denied the same on false grounds through their legal reply dated 13th March 2013 received by the complainant on 14th March 201 The complaint was accordingly filed on 19th March 2013 under the aforesaid Sections read with Sections 417, 418, 420 and 496 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused and his son the erstwhile prospective groom.