Raghunath Sharma Vs Suraj Kant (Himachal Pradesh High Court)
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that complainant failed to prove his financial capability and hence the accused is entitled to acquittal. Accordingly, order of Trial Court upheld and petition is dismissed.
Facts- The complainant filed a complaint before Trial Court for taking action against the accused for the commission of an offence punishable u/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The accused borrowed ₹6.00 lacs from the complainant with an assurance that he would return the amount after two months. The accused failed to pay the amount. When the complainant demanded money, the accused issued a cheque of ₹6.00 lacs. The complainant presented the cheque to his bank, but it was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’. The complainant informed the accused about the dishonour of the cheque. The accused told the complainant to present the cheque again. The complainant presented the cheque on 22.1.2013, but it was again dishonoured with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’. The complainant served a notice dated 31.1.2013 upon the accused asking him to pay the money within 15 days. A legal notice was duly served upon the accused, and the accused issued a reply to the notice. He failed to pay the amount. Hence, the complaint was filed against the accused for taking action as per the law.
