Appeal in dishonour of a cheque case where the High Court held the appeal was incompetent because the appellant failed to prove the cheque was issued by the respondent to discharge liability, noting the cheque arose from a prior agreement with the husband.
The appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed; no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
Cr.A. No. 266/2014 Reserved on: 1.12.2014 Decided on: 3.12. 2014
Ses Ram. …Petitioner. Versus Reeta Bhardwaj. …Respondent.
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. C.N. Singh, Advocate.
Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge.
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.3.2014 rendered by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Kullu in Criminal Complaint No. 1661/2011/33-1/2013.
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2
respondent under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. According to the appellant, respondent has borrowed a sum of two lakhs from him. Respondent issued a cheque on 28.2.2011 bearing No.083767 amounting to two lakhs drawn on Dhalpur Branch of the State Bank of India. The cheque was presented to the bank for encashment on 3.3.2011. It was dishonoured by the bank on account of “insufficient funds”. A legal notice was issued to the respondent on 4.3.2011. The trial court took cognizance of the matter vide order dated 13.7.2011. The substance of accusation was served upon the respondent on 30.4.2012. She pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3
not know about the native place of respondent. He did not know about the house of respondent. He did not know about the occupation of the respondent. According to him, husband of the respondent may be employed as Junior Engineer in I.P.H. He did not know about the children of the respondent. He did not know whether the parents of Parveen Bhardwaj were alive or not. He has entered into agreement with Parveen Bhardwaj to sell the land. The agreement was cancelled subsequently. He did not know about the consideration of sale. Volunteered that the agreement was entered for consideration of twelve lakhs on 28.1.2011. He did not remember that he has taken advance of one lakh on 28.1.2011 and he has also accepted cheque from the wife of Parveen Kumar on 28.2.2011. The balance amount was to be received on 30.3.2011 after the registration. He has issued notice to Parveen Kumar. Thereafter, the agreement was cancelled.
4
dated 28.1.2011 marked as DA.
he had advanced a sum of two lakhs to the respondent by way of loan. However, it has come on record that an agreement was entered into between the appellant and husband of the respondent. A sum of one lakh was received by the appellant. The agreement was cancelled. The appellant has not led any evidence that he has advanced loan to the respondent. It is evident from the tone and tenor of the crossexamination of the appellant that he did not know respondent. Thus, there was no occasion for him to advance loan of ` two lakhs to a unknown person. Rather, the appellant has admitted that an agreement was entered into between the parties to sell the land vide agreement dated 28.1.2011. The appellant has failed to make out a case against the respondent that the cheque in question was issued by her in discharge of any lawful liability. The sale deed was to be executed
5
on 30.3.2011. However, before that an agreement was cancelled.
shall, however, be no order as to costs.
(Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge.
3.12. 2014
awasthi
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant had sufficiently proved that the cheque was issued by the respondent in discharge of lawful liability or it was merely an agreement with the respondent's husband.
Whether the appellant failed to make out a case for dishonour of a cheque due to lack of evidence regarding an advance of loan.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ses Ram
Reeta Bhardwaj
Rajiv Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
