Mo. Arif Vs Ashish Joshi

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:20751

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

ACQA No. 4 of 2024

¶6

Mo. Arif S/o Late Jalil Khan Aged About 52 Years (Wrongly Mentioned Arfi), R/o Noorani Chowk, Rajatalab, Raipur (C.G.)(Applicant/complainant) ... Applicant/Complainant

¶7

versus

¶8

Ashish Joshi S/o Shri D.M. Joshi Shankar Nagar, Khamhardih Road, Kachna, Raipur (C.G.)(Respondent/accused) ... Respondent/accused

¶9

For Appellant. : Shri Raja Sharma, Advocate.

¶10

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment on Board

¶11

06.05.2025

¶12

Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2025.05.07 18:29:49 +0530

¶13

This Acquittal Appeal under Section 378 (4) of the Cr.P.C has been preferred against the judgment dated 13.10.2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur in Criminal Case No.343/2013 (CIS No.20013/2013) whereby, learned trial Court has acquitted the

¶14

2

¶15

Respondent/accused of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the NI Act’).

¶16

As per the averments of the complaint, the Respondent/accused has entered into an agreement for sale on 15.02.2011 (Ex.P-5) of the land of his joint ownership situated at Mandir Hasaud Vikaskhand Aarang, Tahsil Aarang, District Raipur bearing Khasra No.485/1 admeasuring area 0.16 hectares, Khasra No.485/3 admeasuring area 0.24 hectares, Khasra No.485/2 admeasuring area 0.16 hectares and Khasra No.485/4 admeasuring area 0.24 hectares total admeasuring 0.80 hectares and a sale consideration of Rs.7,50,000/- as a whole has been paid by the Appellant/Complainant to the Respondent/accused for Plot Nos.1 to 11 admeasuring 12315 sq.ft. The Respondent/accused/seller further agreed in the said agreement that after execution of the same within a period of 6 months, if the Appellant/Complainant/purchaser offers a price of Rs.200/- per sq. ft per plot, then the seller would give preference to him. In pursuance of the said agreement, he has also given a cheque of Rs.24,62,200/-. It is averred that when the said cheque was presented for encahsment before the Bank, the same got dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds (Ex.P-3) for which, a legal notice was sent (Ex.P-4) and despite the same, when the amount was not paid, the present complaint has been preferred.

¶17

In order to prove his case, the Appellant/Complainant has examined himself and Officer of Punjab National Bank namely Anand Kujur (PW-2) and Assistant Manager, SBI, Raipur-Manoj Kumar Xalxo

¶18

3

¶19

(PW-3). The Respondent/accused has abjured his guilt and his statement was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C wherein, he has stated that he has been implicated in an illegal recovery case made out against him by the Complainant.

¶20

Learned trial Court has, after evaluating the oral and documentary evidence on record, acquitted the Respondent/accused of the charge as mentioned above. Hence, this Appeal has been filed. 5. Shri Sharma submits that the trial Court has not appreciated the facts and evidence of the case in its proper perspective, there is a legal presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act and prays to allow the Appeal.

¶21

Heard learned Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant, perused the documents annexed with the Appeal as also gone through the judgment under challenge with utmost circumspection.

¶22

Perusal of agreement (Ex.P-5) shows that an outright sale has been executed for consideration of Rs.7,50,000/- on 15.02.2011 wherein, the Appellant/Complainant/purchaser was silent about the further terms of the agreement. Further, the Appellant/Complainant also did not state anything as to in what manner, the Respondent/accused has breached the said agreement, therefore, in pursuance of the aforesaid agreement, even if any legally enforceable right accrues, the same has not been clearly established and as such, the whole transaction itself appears to be dubious.

¶23

4

¶24

Considering the aforesaid infirmities and irregularities, this Court is of the opinion that the view taken by the trial Court is a plausible one and therefore, no interference is required.

¶25

Resultantly, the Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed at motion stage .

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) JUDGE

¶28

Priya

Mo. Arif v. Ashish Joshi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mo. Arif v. Ashish Joshi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Kumar Vs Sunil Dewangan

Ramesh Rajput Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shailendra Kumar Tamboli Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Prakash Sachdev Vs Sahab Lal Maurya

Nikhil Kumar Agrawal Vs Tulsi Bai Puri

Pradeep Jain Vs Ramsanihi