JUDGEMENT
A.S.BOPANNA,J. -
(1.) The appellant is before this Court assailing the order dated 17.12.2019 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand
at Ranchi in Criminal M.P. No.2635 of 2017 and Criminal
M.P. No.2655 of 2017. Through the said order, the High
Court has allowed the said Crl.Miscellaneous Petitions and
has set aside the orders dated 04.07.2016 and 13.06.2019
passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Palamau in
Complaint Case No.1833 of 2015. The learned Judicial
Magistrate by the order dated 04.07.2016 had taken
cognizance of the offence alleged against the respondent
No.2 herein. By the order dated 13.06.2019 the learned
Judicial Magistrate had rejected the petition filed by the
respondent No.2 seeking discharge in the said criminal
complaint.
(2.) The brief facts leading to the present case as pleaded is that the appellant and the respondent No.2 are known to
each other inasmuch as the respondent No.2 and the
daughter of the appellant were pursuing their education
together in London. On their return to India, the
respondent No.2 had settled in Bangalore and due to the
earlier acquaintance, the cordial relationship amongst the
families had continued. The respondent No.2 on learning
that the appellant was involved in business, had
approached him at Daltonganj and sought financial
assistance to the tune of Rs.1 crore so as to enable the
respondent No.2 to invest the same in his business. Since
the respondent No.2 had assured that the same would be
returned, the appellant placed trust in him and the
appellant claims to have advanced further sum and in all a
total sum of Rs.2 crores during the periods between
January 2014 to July 2014. The said amount was paid to
respondent No.2 by transferring from the account of
appellant's daughter and also from the account of the
appellant. Towards the said transaction, four agreements
are stated to have been entered acknowledging the receipt
of the loan. The said agreements were reduced into writing
on nonĀjudicial stamp papers bearing No. B489155,
B489156, B489157 and B489159.
(3.) The respondent No.2 assured that the amount would be returned during June/July 2015. Towards the same,
three cheques amounting to Rs.1 crore was handed over to
the appellant. Thereafter, three more cheques for Rs.1
crore was also given. The appellant is stated to have met
respondent No.2 during July 2015 when the respondent
No.2 assured that the amount will be repaid during October
2015. Based on such assurance, the appellant presented the cheques for realisation on 20.10.2015. On
presentation, the said cheques were returned due to
'insufficient funds' in the bank account of respondent No.2.
The appellant therefore got issued a legal notice as contemplated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ( "N.I. Act " for short). Since the respondent No.2 had taken the money on the assurance that the same would be returned but had deceived the appellant, the appellant contended that the respondent No.2 had cheated him and accordingly the complaint was filed both under Section 420 of IPC as also Section 138 of N.I. Act. The appellant had submitted the sworn statement of himself and witnesses. The learned Judicial Magistrate through the order dated 04.07.2016 took cognizance and issued summons to the respondent No.2. ;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.