An application under Section 378(4) CrPC for leave to appeal against an acquittal of the accused in a cheque dishonour case was dismissed. The High Court held the trial court did not commit any perversity as the complainant failed to prove enforcement liability.
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.
CRM-A No.670-MA of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-A No.670-MA of 2011
Date of decision : 03.08.2012
Suraj Bhan
...Applicant-appellant
Versus
M/s Ishaan Electro Industries
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr. K.K. Chaudhary, Advocate, for Mr. Rajnish Gupta, Advocate, for the applicant.
JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral)
The applicant has preferred this application under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of leave to appeal.
Heard.
The grouse of the applicant-appellant is that the learned trial Court, vide the impugned judgment dated 22.11.2010, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hisar, has acquitted the accused-respondent of the charge framed against them. It has been, inter alia, averred that the cheque in question was issued by the accused in discharge of his legally enforceable liability. The signatures and the handwriting on the cheque have not been disputed.
CRM-A No.670-MA of 2011
From the perusal of DDR dated 02.09.2004, it is evident that the accused had made a complaint before the Police that the cheque bearing No.612623 was duly signed by the accused and given to Sanjay, his partner, in good faith and since the firm was closed, there was every possibility of misuse of the said cheque. The applicantcomplainant filed a complaint against the accused on 24.03.2005, i.e. after about six months. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the applicant-complainant failed to discharge his onus to prove with cogent evidence, the existence of any legally enforceable liability of the accused, which resulted into the issuance of the cheque, Ex.P1.
In the circumstances, this Court feels that the impugned judgment does not suffer from any perversity or illegality.
Hence, no ground for grant of leave to file an appeal is
made out.
Dismissed.
Since the main case has been dismissed, CRM No.44744 of
2011 is also dismissed.
03.08.2012 atulsethi
(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether leave to appeal should be granted under Section 378(4) CrPC in a cheque dishonour case where the trial court acquitted the accused for lack of legally enforceable liability.
Whether the acquittal by the trial court was perverse or illegal based on the evidence on record.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Suraj Bhan
M/s Ishaan Electro Industries
Jitendra Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
