Dismissed

Harish Chandra Sharma v. Smt Sudha Sharma

Rajasthan HC15 May 2017CRLLA/138/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge dismissed the criminal leave petition filed by the petitioner seeking leave to appeal against the acquittal of the respondent in an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1381. The court held that the petitioner had not established a case for leave to appeal.

What did the court decide?

Leave to appeal was denied; the acquittal of the respondent stands. The criminal appeal is not instituted.

Harish Chandra Sharma Vs Smt Sudha Sharma — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDXCATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Crml Leave To Appeal No. 138 / 2017

¶3

Harish Chandra Sharma S/o Narayan Lal ~harma; Aged About 40 Years, Lakhari Ghati, Chittorgarh (raj.).

¶4

Versus

¶5

Smt. Sudha Sharma W/o Trilok Chandra Sharma, Aged About 38 Years, Sarvodaya Mohalla, Hamirgarh, Tehsil Hamirgarh, District Chittorgarh (raj.).

¶6

B , For Appellant@) : Mr. Naman Mohnot h

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

¶8

'h <,.:$ ,2 ! This criminal ea,$:':;to:;,g;p;fiea:l .has been .,filed by the appellant ( '" ,::($<. ;.;, ) ,,, ;.?.&*, '... , ,< ;+ 2. $,j?c. > y:s: , , .i,"'t4 f'$?;,-> <J :; : , seeking leave to file. **,** :!;Ti - . a,p,pei$l: :(! , . C.-.,, -.pjl Aagainsf5i ,.... ,> lQ ;'i: the judgment dated [ L.,x +; <\ A. '>% 1.. - .. j Cd j~,P.,> \ .\h~% : ,.. P "1 JtY* # 19.11.2016 passed by the. li ,. special +,.-.. ! Jud'icial Magistrate (NI Act /.I Cases), Chittorgarh (hereinate?: I! !-!!! referred ! to as 'the trial court') in , , , , , j. : Criminal Regular Case , , ?.:,.i,&@8/2'/)15.- . , . -f 4 ;$b+:.; ' +,c:F:-b. 'd" f.tyid:;- Whereby !.. p~ the trial court has Air, j' ...2zs..T.-.a&: -.-.,#:: ,.... -- ij - acquitted the accuse$respndent- .. .r,%,2.? 22yJ-rfo: ,,>,, i. p?j$4i r."tI$e :,, ., i2 offence punishable '#ltl$,:tr".".ki".> _&;$yai.$)g&:>>5?&_ tt: ,, J ;;."2 iJJ '4 " ';. - .x L.5 ;% ,.:&:% ;@A; >;..03? +- under Section 138 of i;Gb:e'i;fNggobabIe .- . ., Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as: 'the NI ~ct.').

¶9

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a complaint in the trial court alleging that the accused-respondent borrowed Rs.l,OO,OOO/- from him for some persorial need and gave him a cheque for repayment of the said amount. It was alleged in the complaint that when the petitioner presented the said cheque before the concerned bank, the same could not be

¶10

realised as the payment was stopped by the respondent. It was further alleged that the petitioner thereafter sent a notice to the accused-respondent, however, despite receipt of the said notice, the amount of loan was not paid by the accused-respondent.

¶11

Iri the court's statement, the petitioner has stated that he gave loan of R~.100,000/- to the accused respondent on 10.12.2012 and he has further stated that the accused respondent borrowed the depositing fees of " ,<- ". I** her son in enineering college. '%. .-. **?,>FA p 41";"";* TD; is . > respondent produced the certified copy of the '$& &3:i"& attendance register of the school Exhibit-D/l, where she was ,' #' .\ ?''I : " %,, 1, **_4"<.-_** * **_"2,_** working as Teacher, to 4J proue.kKa,t ,>< +y .h:tt,u,2; ~~~~10.12.2012 she was in school ,,,t ,. ..I: ' $ _'">i, g'<;'_ 7. 2:"" .ia ""4 jV " <??A$ ,. - . ' ,: . ' <$., .."" ;, K .- at Gangrar and, ~~~r~~~~r;t)tiiiii....G. 2%wyw. v,:" - T-.f ~ t~~~;Ti,:i,~ef SSPPP;1~~~~fal'~S~~"Lstatement that on ., $,&" ' .i; $" < ,",." '" ".'. ,.,.~;;;~~@&~i$"'. J4? .,>>Q' ,<+@ e,;, ,. @# $ $,#2 7 t,Y y:*;*b,G&:$< "'$9 - "',,<f **rA"i_ ,t;;,$e;i;s"~;6i;"$-@&~y* s,~, ,, -0 &;.:a ,$%.? ,s.; 3 10.12.201.2 she ap(&3E&;E$$,,@t:~~:.; t. . ,,& .. .., _S,,:,>;,:2: &~~~.1,;8~; r- ; pettoner for borrowing ;d"v.q<** #,, **;>eh~:$, ,A& *' >,! "',g.,Lr;, . * A,+ _t.._ @isl++$$$,7~ >,>> $6 $,.<<% <,!&. '" ?>$ zt; j3.x _,<i_ ',2 ] **_9: v*_** Rs. 1,00,000/-. The respof&J;e;nf *has BE8a?&imed that her husband -. IS missing from last so &an& ~parjslitt@refore, _.:r$"i_ $ it is also false to '3 ..,, .$>. 3: 3@ jf 'j : 3 2" f say that she approached. $he: pdkiti&nBialong with her husband for ;-re ," - z .w _dd;_ d the purpose of borro

¶12

The trial court available on record and Ila"4-A2'.4ee:a~-.b,2c observed *y,v, **.a.* " r=hv,.i that-, **a .. a* **xT,*r,+-..?,** in the complaint, the c",Y".. ,. k.fdj 61 q $.;j {*d q.-{ 4-r petitioner has not stated 'that "'for what purpose the respondent borrowed the amount of Rs.l,00,000/from him, but in his statement he has stated that the respondent borrowed the said money for the purpose of depositing fees of her son i,n the engineering college. It is also observed by the trial court that though, in the complaint and in the statement, the petitioner has alleged that the accused respondent approached him for

¶13

borrowing amount of Rs.1,00,000/- along with her husband b.ut at the same time he has admitted that the husband of the accused respondent is missing from last so many years. The trial court has also taken into consideration that the petitioner has failed to rebut the defence evidence to the effect that on 1'0.12.2012, the accused respondent was in the school at Gangrar: from 10:30 AM to 04:.3O PM and, therefore, it is not believable that she $1 '4 . Bj approached the petittoqxel;-o.k"@orkoh~~n$ !.re ::, b ,% &$02unt a . . of Rs.1,00,000/<4 '% 48 .',, ,, ""-+-\ Gund 12:OO PM. <% (v-3 ,& *_:,. -@ **.a** .. ;* .&' >

¶14

Aftey-carefully .+ ...2%.%* scrutinizing the record of the case a,nd after going tfiough the judgment impugned, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner e trial court that he has given loan of R dent on 10.12.2012 and, therefore, the t itted any illegality in acquitting the accused ed judgment.

¶15

Hence, no case ile appeal against the

¶16

impugned judgment i

Harish Chandra Sharma v. Smt Sudha Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harish Chandra Sharma v. Smt Sudha Sharma

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

Asararul Haq Vs Shanti Lal and Ors.

Smt Pratishtha Jain Vs State

Devi Lal Vs State and Ors.

Roop Kanwar and Ors. Vs Bhawani Singh and Ors.

Dayal Singh and Anr. Vs Hetram and Ors.

Pancha Ram Vs UOI