Maheswari Vs R.Sasikumar

PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 419(2) of BNSS, praying to set aside the order of acquittal dated 10.02.2025 in CC.No.351 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Avinashi.

¶12

For Appellant : Mr.M.Vignesh

¶13

For Respondent : Mr.M.R.Radhakrishnan

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 10.02.2025 passed in CC.No.351 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Avinashi, thereby dismissing the complaint and acquitting the respondent of the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act.

¶16

Page 1 of 6

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

Crl.A.No.1080 of 2025

¶19

2 . The appellant filed complaint against the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act alleging that the respondent borrowed a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- on 21.03.2014 and on the same day, the respondent had executed pronote. Thereafter, in order to repay the said amount, the respondent issued cheque for a sum of Rs.8,71,000/- including interest and the same was presented for collection. However, it was returned dishonoured for the reason 'account closed'. After causing statutory notice, the appellant filed complaint and the same was taken cognizance by the trial court.

¶20

3 . In order to prove the complaint, the appellant examined

¶21

herself as PW1 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. On the side of the respondent, no one was examined, however documents were marked as Ex.D1 to Ex.D4. On perusal of oral and documentary evidences, the trial court found the respondent not guilty and acquitted him of the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. Aggrieved by the same, the present criminal appeal has been filed by the complainant.

¶22

4 . The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that

¶23

though the respondent admitted his signature and issuance of cheque, the Page 2 of 6

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

Crl.A.No.1080 of 2025

¶26

trial court failed to convict the respondent. Further, the trial court acquitted the respondent only on the ground that the appellant failed to mark the pronote which was executed by the respondent on the date of the borrowal of amount.

¶27

5 . Heard, the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused, all the materials placed before this Court.

¶28

6 . On perusal of records, it is revealed that the appellant also

¶29

filed suit for recovery of money in OS.No.97 of 2017 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tiruppur, wherein he was examined as PW1 and he categorically admitted that the respondent did not borrow any amount on 21.03.2014. Further, the appellant also failed to prove that pronote was executed for any consideration. Therefore, the said suit was dismissed. The present complaint has been lodged only on the cheque which was issued in order to repay the said loan amount which was allegedly borrowed by the respondent and he had executed pronote. Therefore, the cheque was not issued for any legally enforceable debt. That apart, the appellant also failed to mark the pronote. Further, on receipt of the legal notice, the respondent categorically replied and the reply notice was Page 3 of 6

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

Crl.A.No.1080 of 2025

¶32

marked as Ex.P5, wherein it was stated that there was no loan amount borrowed by the respondent. Therefore, the cheque which was issued for

¶33

security purpose has been misused by the appellant and proceedings under Section 138 of NI Act has been initiated. As such, the trial court rightly acquitted the respondent and this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment.

¶34

7 . Accordingly, this criminal appeal is dismissed.

¶35

28.07.2025

¶36

Index : Yes/No Neutral citation : Yes/No Speaking/non-speaking order lok

¶37

Page 4 of 6

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

Crl.A.No.1080 of 2025