2016 (1) TMI 1430 - HC - Indian Laws

Permission for leave to appeal - accused-respondents were acquitted of the charges - HELD THAT - At the time of arguments, nothing has been argued as to how the findings given by learned Court below are perverse or against the law. Nothing has been pointed out as to which material evidence has been misread or which material evidence has not been considered by the Court below. The perusal of the findings given by learned Magistrate show that these are as per evidence and law and have been given after appreciating the evidence in right perspective. The Court held that the base of existing liability for present case is not on the basis of rendition of accounts but is on the basis of compromise dated 25.11.2011. It is further held by the Magistrate that out of ₹ 7.35 crores, ₹ 2.75 crores have been paid by the accused to the complainant. It was also held that after receiving ₹ 3.25 crores, the complainant party was to help the accused party in getting the FIR quashed. It is also admitted that FIR has not been quashed so far - Keeping in view these facts and circumstances, the Court below held that the existing liability is not proved. The findings given by learned Court below in the impugned judgments dated 25.11.2014 are correct, as per evidence and law. Learned Magistrate has appreciated the evidence in right perspective. In no way, the findings given by Court below can be held as perverse or against the law. Thus, no ground is made out to grant permission for leave to appeal - application dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Permission for leave to appeal against acquittal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C.

Detailed Analysis:
The applicant filed applications seeking permission for leave to appeal against the judgment acquitting the accused-respondents. The complaints were filed under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, alleging dishonor of post-dated cheques given as per a compromise between the parties. The complainant claimed that the cheques were dishonored with "stop payment" remarks, leading to legal action. However, the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class acquitted the accused-respondents after appreciating the evidence.

The complainant, in cross-examination, stated the details of the compromise executed on 25.11.2011, where the accused undertook to pay a substantial amount. The complainant alleged that the accused party failed to provide accounts and stopped the payment of cheques due to the complainant's breach of contract terms. The accused contended that the legally enforceable debt and liability required for the offense were not established in the present case.

The Magistrate found that both parties had jointly invested in a business venture, and the complainant was entitled to a share of profits and losses. The court emphasized that the liability was based on the compromise agreement, not on the rendition of accounts. It noted partial payments made by the accused and the pending quashing of the FIR as per the agreement.

Referring to legal precedents, the court held that the compromise did not create a new liability, and the pre-existing liability was not proven in this case. The court concluded that the findings of the lower court were correct, based on evidence and law, and did not warrant interference.

Consequently, the court dismissed the applications for permission to appeal, finding no grounds to challenge the lower court's judgments.