Jagmohan v. Ranjit Singh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM No.A-573-MA of 2016 (O&M) Date of decision: March 30, 2017 Jagmohan ...Applicant

Versus

Ranjit Singh

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr.G.C.Shahpuri, Advocate for the respondent.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Applicant-Jagmohan has filed this application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. seeking permission for leave to appeal against respondent Ranjit Singh, challenging the impugned judgment dated 14.01.2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, vide which the accused-respondent was acquitted.

It is mainly stated in the application that accompanying appeal is being filed which is likely to succeed on the grounds taken therein. It is, therefore, prayed that leave to appeal be granted. As per the record, the complainant Jagmohan filed a complaint against accused S.Ranjit Singh under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. As per complainant's version, there exists business

-2transactions between the parties to the complaint and accused used to purchase hardware articles for preparing the furniture from the complainant on credit basis and used to make the payment thereof. It is further the case of the complainant that the accused had purchased the hardware articles for preparing the furniture from the complainant vide seven bills as detailed in the complaint on credit basis. The accused had promised to make the payment of the said bills shortly but accused failed to fulfill his promise and thereafter, the accused in discharge of his existing liability towards the complainant issued a cheque bearing no.156733 dated 15.10.2012 in the sum of `4,80,000/- in favour of the complainant, which on presentation for encashment, was returned back with the remarks 'Funds Insufficient'. Legal notice was served. When the amount was not paid, then the complaint was filed within time.

Learned JMIC, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri after appreciating the evidence, dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused-respondent vide impugned judgment dated 14.01.2016.

Aggrieved from the above-said judgment, present appeal along with application for grant of leave to appeal has been filed. Notice of motion was issued. Learned counsel for the respondent appeared and contested the application. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

The perusal of the findings given by learned Magistrate shows that these have been given as per evidence and law. In no way, the findings can be held as perverse or against the evidence and law. Nothing has been pointed out as to which material evidence has been misread and which

-3material evidence has not been considered by the Court below. Nothing has been pointed out as to how the findings are perverse or against the law and what illegality has been committed by learned Court below. From the record, I find that the accused in his defence took the plea that he never issued the cheque in question in favour of the complainant in discharge of any existing legal liability. He used to purchase some goods from the shop of complainant and at the beginning of those dealings he had given two signed cheques to the complainant as security for payment to those goods. He further stated that out of those cheques the cheque in question was originally given as amounting to `48,000/- and another cheque of `20,000/- was given by him to the complainant as security.

He further stated that only the amount in figures over both the cheques was filled up by him and rest of the body of the cheques were not filled up by him. Accused further stated that he had not purchased the goods qua the bills as alleged by the complainant in the present complaint. He further stated that he purchased less goods from the complainant than the goods alleged in the present case. He also stated that he had already repaid the amount of those goods duly purchased by him to the complainant and no amount is due towards him of any kind.

It is also the case of the accused that present complainant in collusion with his friend Ravinder Mittal had forged and fabricated the cheque in question along with another cheque as stated above and both of them have manipulated the digit '0' in the cheque in question and as such they have converted the cheque in question from `48,000/- to `4,80,000/- by inserting the digit '0' in the cheque in question.

-4cheque from `20,000/- to `2,20,000.

In the present case, report from FSL, Madhuban is placed on the record to show that in the cheque in question '0' has been inserted to make the cheque from `48,000/- to `4,80,000/-. There is nothing on the record to rebut this report. It is settled law that if there is material alteration in the cheque, no relief can be given and cheque itself becomes void instrument even if the liability exists towards the accused. The Court has discussed qua other cheque also, qua which FSL Madhuban also stated that figure '2' has been added before 20,000 to make it `2,20,000/-. It is also in the report of FSL Madhuban that body on both the cheques which has been filled up, is not in the writing of the accused since the writing on the body of the cheques does not match with the standard writing of the accused which was taken in the court.

From the perusal of the judgment passed by the Court below, I find that the findings have been given by correctly appreciating the evidence in right perspective. In no way, the judgment can be held as perverse or against the evidence.

In view of the above discussion, I find that the impugned judgment dated 14.01.2016 passed by learned JMIC, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, is correct, as per law and evidence and does not require any interference from this Court. No ground is made out for grant of leave to appeal and therefore, the present application stands dismissed. March 30, 2017 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No