HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION U/S 419 BNSS No. - 41 of 2025 With CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION U/S 419 BNSS No. - 44 of 2025 Court No. - 81 HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J. Complainant-Applicant has filed these separate appeals under Section 419(4) B.N.S.S. seeking leave to appeal to challenge the judgment(s) dated 12.2.2025 passed by Presiding Officer, Additional Court, Mathura in Criminal Summon Case No. 35372 of 2022 and Criminal Summon Case No. 34684 of 2022, under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Police Station Highway, District Mathura, whereby the trial court has acquitted the accused-opposite party no.2 for the alleged offences. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that by way of an oral agreement between the complainant-applicant and the accused, a sum of Rs.18,75,000/- was given to the accused on his promise to induct the applicant as a partner to the extent of 50% in setting up the company Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Devesh Kumar Sharma, Saurabh Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : A.K. Mishra, G.A., Sati Shanker Tripathi Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Devesh Kumar Sharma, Saurabh Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : A.K. Mishra, G.A., Sati Shanker Tripathi Smt. Sunita .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) Smt Sunita .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) namely, Bevas C Institute of Training Academy Pvt. Ltd. at Mudhesi Dhangaon Road, Mathura. Learned counsel submits that the amount of Rs.18,75,000/- given by the complainant-applicant was utilized by the accused-opposite party no.2 in raising construction for the company, however as the applicant was not inducted as director/partner, the accused-opposite party no.2 had issued two cheques in favour of the applicant-complainant in order to discharge the said liability, but on presentation the same were dishonoured. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the case of the prosecution is based upon documentary evidence and the ingredients to constitute the offence have been duly proved by leading cogent evidence, but the trial court has proceeded to acquit the accused in both the complaint cases solely on the ground that the applicant has failed to prove that she had actually advanced the above noticed amount to the accused or she had the capacity to help the accused. Learned counsel submits that once the issuance of cheque is not disputed by the accused, the presumption attached to the instrument remained intact that the cheques were issued for discharging liability, 'a legally enforceable debt', and in the absence of any rebuttal evidence, the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 12.2.2025 is not sustainable. According to him, the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 12.2.2025 calls for interference by this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction, therefore, he prays for grant of leave to appeal. During the course of hearing, it is not disputed by learned counsel that the agreement between the parties relating to 50% share of the applicant in the company was oral in nature and the contribution of investment in the alleged company by the applicant is not reduced into writing. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the applicant and considering his submissions, this Court finds that once the complainant has herself set up a case of advancement of money to the accused-opposite party no.2, and contributed for raising construction for the company, therefore, the initial burden is to be discharged by the complainant herself. A perusal of one of the invoices against which the applicant-complainant had made payment(s) to the building material suppliers would show that the invoice(s) are in the name of Suresh (husband of the complainant- NA419 No. 41 of 2025 2 applicant). Thus, it becomes clear that the alleged liability set up by the complainant against the accused is rendered doubtful. During the course of hearing, it is fairly stated by learned counsel for the complainant- applicant that no such invoice(s) would reflect the name of the company as the purchaser of the material, and also no receipt had been issued to establish that actually the payment by the applicant was made in cash for purchase of material required for construction of building for the company. A perusal of the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 12.2.2025 would show that the trial court has carefully examined the prosecution evidence on record and has rightly proceeded to acquit the accused. The observations made by the trial court are founded upon correct appreciation of the evidence on record and the view adopted by the trial court is a possible view, therefore, this Court finds that the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 12.2.2025 does not suffer any illegality or impropriety. Resultantly, no case is made out for grant of leave to appeal and the application is dismissed. (Manoj Bajaj,J.) September 15, 2025 P.S.Parihar NA419 No. 41 of 2025 3 Digitally signed by :- POORAN SINGH PARIHAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad