High CourtsDivision Bench(2012) 05 JH CK 0083

Firoz Khan vs The State of Jharkhand and another

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 14 May 2012

HON’BLE JUDGES
R.K. Merathia, J · Dhrub Narayan Upadhyay, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal M.P. No. 1587 of 2011

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 312 words
1.

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed u/s 378(4) Cr. Pc for grant of leave to file appeal against the judgment dated 18.06.2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur in C-1-142/09 (T.R. No. 1033/2011) acquitting the accused/opposite party no. 2 from charges u/s 138 of the N.I. Act. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the basis of the materials on record, order of acquittal could not be passed; and that the transaction of 2006 has been clubbed with the transaction in question of 2008.

2.

On the other hand, counsel for the O.P. No. 2 supported the impugned judgment.

3.

It appears that the money receipt dated 12.12.2006 (Ext.2) was given by the petitioner to the O.P. No. 2, which is not denied. At the bottom of this money receipt, it has been mentioned that the cheque no. 761885 of Bihar State Co-operative Bank Ltd., Bistupur was not traceable and the complainant will refund it to the accused / O.P. No. 2 without use. Then case was filed for dishonour of the said cheque on the ground that it was issued by O.P. No. 2 on 16.09.2008 for Rs. 2,50,000/- but the same was dishonoured.

4.

After hearing the parties at length and carefully going through the records, we are satisfied that the trial court has rightly acquitted O.P. No. 2 inter-alia holding that the cheque no. in question was not issued by the opposite party no. 2 in favour of the petitioner / complainant in discharge of any liability or debt as alleged by the complainant, rather it was issued as security of the loan taken by O.P. No. 2 and the said loan was already paid by O.P. No. 2 to the complainant. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to grant leave to file appeal. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.