Nagamma v. K.Mageshkumar

in Crl.A.SR.Nos.36882 and 36887 of 2023 M. NIRMAL KUMAR , J.

These petitions have been filed seeking to grant special leave to prefer the above criminal appeals.

2.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed two complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent in STC No.7 of 2021 for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- and STC No.8 of 2021 for a sum of Rs.4,25,000/-. The respondent's wife Vani sold the property through Doc.No.10020/2011 and for this property the petitioner paid around Rs.6,00,000/-. Later, the petitioner came to know that no such property was available and hence, she lodged a complaint to the police and during the enquiry, the respondent, his wife as well as their Power Agent, Mr.Mohan appeared and admitted about the mistake committed. Thereafter the cheque was issued and cash of Rs.25,000/- was deposited in the petitioner's account. This is the true fact but in the statutory notice, complaint and in the proof affidavit it has been mentioned that from the petitioner the respondent had taken loan of Rs.6,00,000/- for purchase of land, which was by inadvertence. 1/4

3.Further submitted that the petitioner is illiterate and street vendor selling vegetables in the platform. With her hard earned money and pledging her daughter's jewellery she paid the amount for purchase of property. The respondent and his wife through their power agent executed a sale deed and no such property is available. In support of his contention, learned counsel produced the Sale Deed document and Encumbrance Certificate. Further referring to the cross examination of the respondent he submitted that the respondent admits the issuance of cheque and also the land transaction but took a defence that the cheque was issued in the police station and Mohan is the person, who received the money not the respondent. The said Mohan is no more. Taking advantage of the same, the respondent is making such claim. In any event, Mohan is only a power agent and the respondent and his wife are liable for the above offence.

4.Mr.M.I.Javid Akbar, learned counsel for the respondent is present. He submitted that though the petitioner make such representation, the same is not brought in as evidence.

2/4

5.Considering the submissions made, the specific case of the respondent that the petitioner had no means and no transaction with respondent cannot be accepted, hence, this Court is inclined to grant leave. Accordingly, leave is granted.

21.11.2023 Note: Registry is directed to number these Criminal Appeals, if they are otherwise in order. rsi 3/4

M. NIRMAL KUMAR , J.

rsi in Crl.A.SR.Nos.36882 and 36887 of 2023 21.11.2023 4/4