Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

SUMMONING ORDER:

3. The trial Court, vide order dated 11.02.2014, summoned the appellant for offence under Section 138 NI Act. NOTICE OF ACCUSATIONS UNDER SECTION 251 CR.P.C.:

4. On 21.07.2014, the trial Court explained substance of accusations to the appellant, as required under Section 251 Cr.P.C., to which she responded as under:

"Q. Do you plead guilty or have any defence to make? A. I do not plead guilty and claim trial. The account from which the cheque in question has been issued is mine, however, the signatures in the cheque are not mine. I had never asked for any loan from the complainant as alleged by her. I cannot say how the cheque in question was with the complainant. I have created my account from 27/04/2007 and closed on 04/03/2010. During this period as far as I can recall, the said account has never been operated by me. The cheque book was also not used by me for any financial transaction."

POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

(a) Whether the appellant had drawn a cheque on an account maintained by her with a banker for payment of an amount of Rs. 3,85,000/- in favour of the complainant?

16. The complainant testified that she had advanced a friendly loan of Rs. 3,85,000/- to the appellant in month of September, 2012 and in discharge of the said liability, the appellant issued the said cheque in her favour. She placed the said cheque on the record. The appellant, in reply to notice of accusations under Section 251 Cr.P.C., admitted that account from which the said cheque was issued pertained to her.

44. The appellant did not appear in the witness box to depose that she had no friendly relation with the complainant. She did not state, in her examination under Section 281 Cr.P.C., that she did not know the complainant.

45. Mere denial of relationship with the complainant is not sufficient to prove that the appellant had no friendly relation with the complainant.

46. The complainant is residing in Sarai Rohilla, Delhi and the appellant is residing in Ashok Vihar, Delhi. Both the places are just adjacent to each other. The complainant is known to mother of the appellant since 7-8 years as on 24.05.2017. Besides a denial in response to notice of accusations under Section 251 Cr.P.C., there is no evidence that the appellant did not have friendly relation with the complainant. There is sufficient material, as discussed above, to establish that the complainant had friendly relation with the appellant.

50. As regards contention that the complainant received the said cheque from mother of the appellant on misrepresentation as security, it can be stated that till 21.07.2014, the defence of the appellant, in response to notice of accusations under Section 251 Cr.P.C., was that she cannot say as to how the said cheque was with the complainant. Therefore, it is evident that it was the basic defence of the appellant that she was not aware as to how the said cheque reached to the complainant.