Dismissed

Sandhya v. Rita Khurana

Delhi HC8 Mar 2018CRL.L.P./158/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court dismissed a leave to appeal against a judgment acquitting the respondent of an offence under Section 138 NI Act. The court found no error as the petitioner failed to produce original loan agreements or seek additional evidence, and lacked capacity to advance the loan per bank records. A related application for suspension of the order was also dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Leave to appeal is declined; petition dismissed; suspension of impugned order not granted.

Sandhya Vs Rita Khurana — Cheque Dishonour | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~49

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.L.P. 158/2018

¶4

SANDHYA ..... Petitioner

¶5

Represented by: Mr. Khushbir Singh, Advocate.

¶6

versus

¶7

RITA KHURANA ..... Respondent

¶8

Represented by: None.

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

¶11

O R D E R % 08.03.2018

¶12

Crl.M.A. No. 4343/2018 (Exemption)

¶13

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶14

Crl.M.B. No. 404/2018

¶15

By this application, the petitioner seeks suspension of the impugned order till finalisation of the appeal.

¶16

Leave to appeal is yet to be granted thus no suspension of the impugned order is granted. Application is dismissed.

¶17

CRL.L.P. 158/2018

¶18

By this petition, the petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the impugned judgment dated 9^th January, 2018 acquitting the respondent for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

¶19

In the complaint, petitioner alleged that the respondent approached the complainant for a friendly loan of ₹6 lakhs and assured the petitioner that she would repay the same in 2013, thus she issued a post dated cheque CRL.L.P. 158/2018 Page 1 of 2

¶20

of the said amount in discharge of the liability.

¶21

The cheque when present was dishonoured with the remark ‘funds insufficient’ on 24^th September, 2013. The petitioner therefore issued legal demand notice through her counsel, however, the respondent failed to make the payment in the stipulated time of 15 days.

¶22

In the evidence the complainant exhibited the cheque, legal demand notice and the return memo, however, in respect of the evidence relating to legal liability two documents purported to be the loan agreement were produced however, they could not be exhibited as they were not in original.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that no time was granted to the petitioner to produce the original documents.

¶24

On a query put by this Court as to whether petitioner filed an application to lead additional evidence and exhibit the said original documents, the answer is in the negative.

¶25

As a matter of fact after the opportunity to cross-examine the petitioner was closed, respondent filed an application Section 311 Cr.P.C. and petitioner was recalled for cross-examination when copies of the passbook of the two bank accounts in the name of the petitioner were also placed on record and exhibited as Ex. CW-1/A1 & Ex. CW-1/A2. Even at that stage the original loan agreements were not exhibited. From the copy of the passbook of the two bank accounts the petitioner could not satisfy the capacity to advance the loan. Thus, this Court finds no error in the impugned judgment. Leave to appeal is declined. Petition is dismissed.

¶26

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

¶27

MARCH 08, 2018/‘yo’ CRL.L.P. 158/2018

¶28

Page 2 of 2

Sandhya v. Rita Khurana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandhya v. Rita Khurana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravinder Vs State

Vikas Dahiya Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi

Chander Shekhar Chanchal & Ors. Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Mohit Kaushik & Anr. Vs State

Mohit Gupta & Ors. Vs the State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Ms Sofiya Vs State & Anr.