Delhi court acquits accused in Rs 1.25 crore cheque dishonour case

This case pertains to an alleged friendly loan of Rs 80 lakh for a period of four years. It was alleged that the accused had offered a lump sum interest of Rs 45 lakh on the principal amount of Rs 80 lakh through a cheque, which was dishonoured.

Metropolitan Magistrate Akanksha observed, "All the legal requirements constituting an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act being cumulative in nature, the fact that the first legal requirement has not been proved in favour of the complainant, the ingredients necessary to bring home the guilt of the accused remain incomplete."

Accordingly, accused Vagisha Suneja is acquitted for the alleged offence under section 138 NI Act, the court ordered on April 29.

The Court noted that the accused has been able to successfully rebut the presumption of law and discharge the burden of proof by raising a probable defence that the cheque in question was not issued in discharge of his liability as the cheque was presented in excess of his liability as of the date of its presentation.

Brig M L Khattar (Retd.) had filed this complaint under section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act against accused Vagisha Suneja, on January 24, 2018.

It was alleged that in the discharge of her liability including the consolidated interest the accused issued the cheque in question bearing no. 007486 dated December 6, 2017, for an amount of Rs 1.25 crore with assurances of its encashment.

It was also alleged that the accused pestered the complainant for a friendly loan of Rs 80 lakh for 4 years and offered a lump sum interest of Rs 45 lakh.

After that, the complainant prematurely broke his FDs and gave his lifetime savings, through two cheques of Rs 66 lakh on June 14, 2013, and Rs 14 lakh on June 27, 2013, the complainant had alleged.

Some days back the complaint had disposed of his property due to personal difficulty. It was also the case of the complainant that the accused and her husband were his neighbours. Therefore, they had knowledge that the complaint had cash at his disposal.

On the other hand, advocate Pujya Kumar Singh, counsel for the accused argued and challenged the fact that why would any person agree to give Rs 1.25 crore in lieu of Rs 80 lakh?

The counsel also contended that the complainant has failed to prove how he calculated the interest of Rs 45 lakh.

On the other hand, the counsel for the complainant contended that the interest of Rs 45 lakh was a consolidated interest and no percentage or arithmetical calculation was done in calculating the interest.

"It is an admitted fact that there is no written agreement for the loan. The amount of Rs 80 lakh is also not a small amount but a huge sum of money. However, the complainant has successfully proved that he transferred an amount of Rs 80 lakh in the account of the accused," the court noted in the order dated April 29. (ANI)