Case Summary
Sanju Raju filed a private complaint against Rajesh P.R. alleging that Rajesh issued a dishonoured cheque for a transaction involving the sale of cement. The court found Rajesh not guilty, stating that the complainant failed to prove the legally enforceable debt.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Criminal Case
Final Judgment
No
The accused, Rajesh P.R., was acquitted of the charges under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as the court found that the complaint lacked sufficient evidence.
Key Reasoning:
The complainant could not establish that there was any legally enforceable debt.
The complainant could not establish that there was any legally enforceable debt.
Why Defendant Won:
The complainant could not establish that there was any legally enforceable debt.
The complainant could not establish that there was any legally enforceable debt.
Supporting Evidence
On an overall analysis of the evidence before the court, it can be held that the complainant could not establish that there was any legally enforceable debt.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the accused is found not guilty for offence punishable U/s.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. Therefore, the accused is acquitted U/s. 255(1) Cr.P.C.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Sanju Raju
- Party Age
- 26
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Rajesh P.R.
- Party Age
- 35
Plaintiffs Documents
Cheque bearing no.416741 for ₹1,00,000/-, Lawyer’s notice, Postal receipt
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Leena Krishnan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Boban T. Thekkel
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The complainant sought to establish that the accused committed an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Evidence:
In view of my findings in point No.1, I found that the complainant could not establish that the accused has drawn Exhibit P1 cheque in discharge of a legally enforceable debt.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Cheque
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This cheque was issued by the accused towards partial discharge of liability due to the complainant.
Reference:
P1
Document Type:
Dishonour memo
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This memo indicates that the cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds.
Reference:
P2
Document Type:
Lawyer’s Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This notice was sent to the accused demanding payment after the cheque was dishonoured.
Reference:
P3
Document Type:
Postal receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This receipt serves as proof of sending the notice to the accused.
Reference:
P4
Document Type:
Acknowledgment card
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This card acknowledges receipt of the notice by the accused.
Reference:
P5
Document Type:
Registration Certificate
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This certificate proves the existence of the complainant's company.
Reference:
P6
Case Classification
Case Type
Criminal Case
Category
Cheque Bounce Cases
District
Kottayam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Kottayam
Common Reasons
Cheque dishonour
Case Code
S.T.
Case Code Year
2022
Case Flags
Cheque-Related Case
Nature of Cheque Case
Cheque Dishonour under Section 138 N.I. Act