9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 256X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The appellant-accused and respondent Hereinafter, being referred to as 'respondent-complainant. entered into a leasecum- rent agreement on 12th May, 2014 for Flat No. 206, 2nd Floor, SAN VIL Apartment, 6th & 7th Cross, 50 Feet Main Road, Balaji Nagar, Mallathahalli Extension, Bangalore-560056 Hereinafter, referred to as 'subject flat' owned by the appellant-accused. The respondent-complainant deposited a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- with the appellant-accused by way of 'security deposit'. The rent for the subject flat was settled at Rs.2,500/- per month as per the rent agreement which was valid for a period of 11 months and was to terminate on 11th April, 2015, whereupon the appellant-accused would be required to refund the security deposit of Rs.9,00,000/- and collect the keys and receive vacant possession of the said flat from the respondent-complainant. Upon completion of 11 months, the respondent-complainant issued a notice dated 18th June, 2015, to the appellant-accused, imploring him to refund the security deposit amount. However, the appellant-accused could not arrange the said amount and thus, he issued four post-dated cheques to the respondent-complainant. The details of the chequ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... instituted multiple revision petitions Supra note 2, in the High Court, against the rejection of his appeals and the confirmation of his conviction and also, against the enhancement of the amount of compensation from Rs.3,00,000/- to Rs.9,00,000/- by the appellate Court. The High Court, vide common judgment dated 8th July, 2024, dismissed all the revision petitions filed by the appellant-accused and upheld his conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act. Further, the High Court also directed the appellant-accused to pay fine amount of Rs.9,00,000/- to the respondent-complainant on or before 31st July, 2024 (less the amount, if any, already deposited). In default, the appellant-accused was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years. However, the amount of Rs.5,000/-, awarded by the trial Court towards defraying expenses to the State, was set aside. 8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the High Court, the appellant-accused is before us, with the present set of appeals by special leave. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant-accused urged that the cheques in question were given in relation to the lease-cum-rent agreement executed by the appellant-accu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cause the case set up by the respondent-complainant does not satisfy the parameters of a legally enforceable debt against the appellantaccused so as to make him liable for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. 12. On these grounds, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-accused implored this Court to accept the appeals, by setting aside the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below and thus, acquit the appellant-accused. 13. E-converso, learned counsel appearing for the respondentcomplainant vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant-accused. He urged that the appellant-accused is unjustifiably trying to confuse the issue of rent of the subject flat with the dishonour of cheques whereas both have no corelation whatsoever. Indisputably, the respondentcomplainant had paid a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- to the appellantaccused by way of security deposit when the subject flat was taken on rent. Upon completion of tenure of the rent agreement, since the security deposit amount was not refunded, the appellantaccused issued four disputed post-dated cheques to the respondent-complainant. These cheques were presented by the resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of fine, to Rs.3,00,000/- with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the cheques till realisation, to be paid by the appellant-accused to the respondent-complainant. From the said amount of Rs.3,00,000/-, a sum of Rs.5,000/- was directed to be forfeited to the State Exchequer towards defraying expenses. In default, the appellant-accused was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. 17. It is undisputed that the cheques in question were given by the appellant-accused to the respondent-complainant towards refund of the security deposit to the tune of Rs. 9,00,000/- made by the latter, when he had taken the flat owned by the appellant - accused on rent. The refund of the amount of security deposit was contingent upon the respondent-complainant handing over the vacant possession of the flat and returning the keys thereof to the appellant-accused. Upon completion of the tenure of the lease, the appellant-accused issued a legal notice calling upon the respondent-complainant to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the subject flat, but the respondent-complainant did not vacate the same. As a consequence, the appellant-accused filed a suit Supr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed by mentioning I am vacating the house where I am residing. It is false to state that again on 22.05.2015, I passed the message to the accused that on (sic)0.05.2015, I vacated the house. But I have not vacated it. It is correct to state that on 18.06.2015, I wrote a letter to the accused. It is false to state that in the said letter, I mentioned that I will vacate the house if security amount of Rs. 9 lakh is returned. It is correct to state that for the purpose of security I issued 4 post-dated filled cheques. It is false to state that as stated above after receiving the cheque, I told if Rs. 9 lakh is returned, then said cheques will be returned. It is false to state that on 26.08.2015, accused along with witnesses gave a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs in cash by coming to my house. It is correct to state that from that day till this date I have not paid the rent amount and maintenance amount. It is correct to state that I have issued notice upon accused as per Ex.P-3. It is correct to state that as per Ex.P-7, accused has sent the reply notice. Advocate shown the letter dated 18.06.2015 to the witness, for that witness states it is correct this is the letter which was written by me. Bec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00/- each, totalling to Rs.4,20,000/-. The said demand drafts were directed to be deposited with the learned Secretary General of this Court. 24. This Court vide order dated 8th August, 2023, disposed of the said SLPs directing the Registry to transmit the said demand drafts to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bangalore i.e., the trial Court, and the amount covered by the said drafts was ordered to be invested in an interest-bearing fixed deposit in a Nationalised Bank. Evidently, the amount deposited by the appellant-accused i.e., a sum of Rs.4,20,000/- (Two demand drafts of Rs.2,10,000/- each) as recorded in the order dated 1st August, 2022 passed by this Court, must also have generated interest. 25. Thus, while setting aside the judgments of the High Court and the appellate Court and restoring that of the trial Court, we direct that the sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- by way of compensation shall be paid to the respondent-complainant. The remaining amount over and above the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- awarded to the respondent-complainant by way of compensation, shall be reimbursed to the appellant-accused. 26. In view of the above discussion, the impugned judgments, dated 6th March, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
