Allowed

Smt. Raman Chaudhary W/O Shri Sandeep Puniya v. Vikas Sharma S/O Shri Vinay Shankar Sharma

Rajasthan HC23 May 2025CRLAS/663/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal against acquittal in a cheque dishonour case, holding the trial court committed perversity by presuming payment without evidence. The conviction was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh trial after hearing both parties.

What did the court decide?

Acquittal set aside; matter remitted to Trial Court for fresh consideration after opportunity of hearing.

Smt. Raman Chaudhary W/O Shri Sandeep Puniya Vs Vikas… — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:22904]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 663/2023

¶4

Smt. Raman Chaudhary W/o Shri Sandeep Puniya, R/o Room No. 1, Dgafms Office, M Block Ministry Of Defence, New Delhi, Presently R/o Dilip Puniya, House No. 11, Type 4, Central Revenue Colony, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Vikas Sharma S/o Shri Vinay Shankar Sharma, R/o Plot No. 87, Mohan Niwas, Shankar Nagar, Brahampuri, Jaipur, Presently R/o Plot No. 14, Govind Nagar, Near Shani Mandir, Chitrakoot, Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Brijesh Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikas Karwasra for Mr. Vikas Kumar Jakhar Mr. Devi Singh, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, AAAG

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶11

Order

¶12

23/05/2025

¶13

Instant appeal is preferred by appellant-complainant aggrieved from judgment of acquittal dated 08.12.2021 in Criminal Case No.92635/2018 passed by learned Special Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act Cases) No.11, Jaipur Metro-II, whereby respondent-accused was acquitted from charge under Section 138 of NI Act.

¶14

The facts of the case are that after dishonour of a cheque of ₹9 lacs, appellant-complainant has filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of NI Act as respondent-accused has failed to pay amount demanded through notice. After cognizance, the

[2025:RJ-JP:22904]

[CRLAS-663/2023]

(2 of 4)

matter was tried by the Trial Court, PW-1 appellant-complainant appeared as witness and exhibited 5 documents, whereas accused has exhibited Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-35 in defence, but did not appeared as a witness in witness-box. Learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent-accused. The appellant has filed a leave to appeal and this Court on 28.03.2023, has granted leave to appeal.

¶19

During course of arguments, learned counsel for appellant submitted that both the parties have entered into an agreement on 07.06.2017, and in pursuance to this agreement, the respondent-accused has issued a cheque No.041256 payable on 07.06.2018 and when this cheque was presented for encashment then same was dishonoured. He further submitted that ₹9 lacs was borrowed by respondent-accused from appellant-complainant and same is evident from the agreement dated 07.06.2017. Learned counsel has further submitted that during pendency of criminal case, respondent-accused has filed an application for compromise and agreed to settle dispute by making payment of ₹10,75,000/- in four installments. He submits that when the grounds of discharge and defence were already considered by the Trial Court in order dated 27.01.2020 then it is not permissible for the Trial Court to acquit the respondent on same grounds.

¶20

After considering the aforesaid, learned counsel for respondent-accused submits that the parties have entered into a compromise during pendency of criminal case, but he submits that the order of Trial Court is on based on facts. At last, he agreed that the matter be remitted back to the Trial Court after setting aside the order of acquittal.

[2025:RJ-JP:22904]

[CRLAS-663/2023]

(3 of 4)

Heard learned counsels for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record.

¶25

A perusal of material brought on record indicate that after executing an agreement on 07.06.2017, ₹9 lacs were advanced by appellant to respondent-accused, and the amount so advanced is to be returned by way of cheque No.041256 dated 07.06.2018. The evidence on record clearly indicate that on basis of Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-35, Trial Court presumed the payment and acquitted the accused, but there is no evidence on record to show that the payment was made after 07.06.2018, after dishonour of cheque. Initially, it was defence of accused that the cheque No.041256 was given as a security, though agreement dated 07.06.2017 speaks otherwise.

¶26

An application dated 08.02.2020 is also available on record which indicate that both the parties have entered into a compromise to settle the dispute after total payment of ₹10,75,000/-. Out of which three installments of ₹3 lacs each has to be paid on 04.04.2020, 06.06.2020, 07.08.2020 respectively and remaining ₹1,75,000/- till 05.09.2020, but there is no record to show that any payment was made in pursuant to compromise dated 08.02.2020.

¶27

Having considered the documents on record it appears that the Trial Court has not only committed serious error by passing an order against the record, but it has committed perversity and illegality, therefore, on suggestion of learned counsels for the parties, it is appropriate to set aside the judgment and remit back the matter to the Trial Court for decision afresh.

[2025:RJ-JP:22904]

[CRLAS-663/2023]

(4 of 4)

In view of discussion made herein above, the instant S.B. Criminal Appeal is hereby allowed and judgment of acquittal dated 08.12.2021 is set aside and the matter is remitted back for fresh consideration of criminal case after opportunity of hearing to both the parties.

¶32

The parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 30.06.2025. The Trial Court is expected to dispose of the criminal case within a period of 3 months from date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶33

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶34

GAURAV /51

Smt. Raman Chaudhary W/O Shri Sandeep Puniya v. Vikas Sharma S/O Shri Vinay Shankar Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Raman Chaudhary W/O Shri Sandeep Puniya v. Vikas Sharma S/O Shri Vinay Shankar 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

Rajaram Son of Dharm Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Sunil Kumar S/O Hansraj Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajneet S/O Hukamsingh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Jagdish S/O Andaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Vishal Kumar Jangid S/O Shri Vijay Kumar @ Tejpal Vs State of Rajasthan

Kallu Alias Pradhan Son of Hargyan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan