Allowed¶8

Murari Prasad v. Surendra Verma

Delhi HC3 Mar 2025CRL.L.P./587/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRL.L.P. 587/2022; Murari Prasad v Surendra Verma; Delhi High Court; Jasmeet Singh, J.; leave to appeal; Section 378(4) Code of Criminal Procedure 1973; Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act 1881; Section 313 CrPC statement; acquittal; cheque Rs 5,00,000; diamond pendant; jeweler; legally enforceable debt; financial capacity; Complaint Case No. 22873/2016; judgment dated 30.07.2022; appeal admitted.

What did the court decide?

Leave to appeal granted under section 378(4) CrPC against the judgment dated 30.07.2022; Registry directed to number the appeal (CRL.A /2025 to be numbered); notice issued and accepted by counsel for the respondent; appeal admitted and to be listed in due course. ¶8

Murari Prasad Vs Surendra Verma — Cheque Dishonour | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether leave to appeal should be granted to the petitioner under section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the acquittal judgment dated 30.07.2022 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate - 04, North-West District, Delhi. +1 more

¶1

Court's answer

The application is allowed and the petitioner is granted leave to appeal against the judgment dated 30.07.2022 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate - 04, North-West District, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 22873/2016.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

The entire discussion and the findings arrived at by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate become insignificant upon reading the respondent's statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶4

Key takeaways

On the respondent's own Section 313 admission, the pendant was purchased by the respondent and he had given a cheque of Rs 5,00,000 to the petitioner; since the petitioner did not get the required market price, he took back the pendant and the respondent failed to take his cheque back.ratio¶5
Prima facie, the respondent's explanation does not inspire confidence because he is a jeweler who deals in such transactions regularly, and cannot be expected to return the pendant without taking back the cheque which was given for its purchase.ratio¶6

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Jasmeet Singh, J., order dated 03.03.2025, CRL.L.P. 587/2022) grants leave to appeal under section 378(4) CrPC to Murari Prasad against the acquittal of Surendra Verma under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (judgment dated 30.07.2022, Metropolitan Magistrate - 04, North-West District, Delhi, Complaint Case No. 22873/2016). The acquittal had rested on the complainant's supposed lack of financial capacity (Class 10th graduate; income approx ₹20,000–₹50,000 per month; bank balance around ₹5,000; pendant worth ₹5–₹8 lakhs) and on the respondent discharging the onus of showing no legally enforceable debt. The Court holds these findings insignificant in light of the respondent's Section 313 statement admitting that he purchased the pendant, gave an Rs 5,00,000 cheque, took the pendant back for want of the market price and failed to retrieve the cheque — an explanation which, prima facie, does not inspire confidence since the respondent is a jeweler dealing in such transactions regularly. The appeal (CRL.A/2025, to be numbered) was noticed and admitted.

¶1

$~15

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.L.P. 587/2022

¶4

MURARI PRASAD .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Subodh Kumar Jha, Adv.

¶6

versus

¶7

SURENDRA VERMA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Vishesh Wadhwa, Ms. Swadha Gupta, Ms. Shubhangi Singh, Advs.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

¶10

O R D E R % 03.03.2025

¶11

This is an application filed under section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking of grant of leave to appeal against the judgment dated 30.07.2022, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate - 04, North-West District, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 22873/2016, whereby the respondent was acquitted of the offences under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

¶12

The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, while acquitting the respondent, observed that the petitioner, being merely a Class 10^th graduate with an income of approximately ₹20,000 to ₹50,000 per month and a fluctuating bank balance of around ₹5,000, lacked the financial capacity to purchase a pendant worth ₹5 to ₹8 lakhs.

¶13

The learned Metropolitan Magistrate was of the view that the respondent has discharged the onus of showing that there was no legally

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/03/2025 at 11:07:21

¶16

enforceable debt.

¶17

To my mind, the entire discussion as well as the finding arrived at by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate becomes insignificant upon reading the respondent's statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The operative portion reads as under:

¶18

“Do you want to say anything else?

¶19

A When the complainant approached me, I was told that he was a goldsmith and also doing a business of loose diamond and diamond jewelery I am also a jeweler and the complainant used to buy loose diamond jewelery from me since the year 2009 and used to sell the same in Bihar. The complainant used to come to me twice or thrice in a couple of months. Complainant approached me to sell a diamond pendant which I never took because of disagreements over price The complainant again approached me to sell the same pendant because he was in dire need of money Upon considering his repeated request, I gave him a cheque of Rs 5,00,000/- against the said pendant. The complainant upon not getting the required market price, took his pendant and I forgot to take back the said cheque in question. Complainant misused the said cheque and filed a false and frivolous case against me.”

¶20

In the present case, the respondent has himself admitted that the pendent was purchased by the respondent and in this regard, he had given a cheque of Rs 5,00,000 to the petitioner, but since the petitioner was not getting the required market price, the petitioner took back the pendant and the respondent failed to take his cheque back.

¶21

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/03/2025 at 11:07:21

¶23

6. Prima-facie, the same to my mind does not inspire confidence as the respondent is a jeweler and deals in such kind of transactions on regular basis. He cannot be expected to return a pendant and not take the cheque back which was given for purchase of the pendant.

¶24

For the said reasons, the issue needs consideration.

¶25

In this view of the matter, the application is allowed and the petitioner is granted leave to appeal against the judgment dated 30.07.2022, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate - 04, North-West District, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 22873/2016.

¶26

The application is disposed of.

¶27

CRL.A /2025 (TO BE NUMBERED)

¶28

Since the leave to appeal has been granted, the Registry is directed to number the appeal.

¶29

Issue notice.

¶30

Mr. Wadhwa, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.

¶31

For the reasons stated in the appeal, the appeal is “ Admitted ” and shall be listed in due course.

¶32

JASMEET SINGH, J

¶33

MARCH 3, 2025/sp

¶34

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶35

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/03/2025 at 11:07:21

Murari Prasad v. Surendra Verma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murari Prasad v. Surendra Verma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravinder Kumar Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Aakash Vs the State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Aftab Ahmed @ Munna Vs State Govt NCT of Delhi

Guddi Devi Vs State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Manjeet Singh Vs State & Anr.

State (through Office of Director General Prisons) Vs Asadullah Akhtar @ Haddi & Anr.