2025:HHC:39386 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 1545 of 2025 Reserved on: 31.10.2025 Date of Decision: 21.11.2025 Shri Ram Transport Finance Company Ltd. ....Appellant Versus Deepak Kumar .... Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Dalmia, Advocate. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The applicant/appellant has filed the present application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.4, Hamirpur, H.P. (learned Trial Court) vide which the complaint filed by the applicant/appellant (complainant before learned Trial Court) was dismissed. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.) 1. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 2025:HHC:39386 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present application are that the complainant filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act). It was asserted that the complainant is engaged in financing activities. The accused approached the complainant for financing of the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-01H-0868. The agreement was executed on 29.03.2017 between the parties, and an amount of ₹4,46,100/- was disbursed to the accused. The accused defaulted on the repayment of the loan amount. He issued a cheque of ₹5,10,000/- drawn on Kangra Central Cooperative Bank to discharge his liability. The complainant presented the cheque, but it was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. The complainant served a notice upon the accused asking him to repay the amount within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. The notice was duly served upon the accused, but he failed to repay the amount. Hence, the complaint was filed before the learned Trial Court for taking action as per the law. 3. Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, a notice of accusation was put to him for the commission of an offence punishable under 3 2025:HHC:39386 Section 138 of the NI Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The complainant examined Kapil Dev (CW1), Promila Devi (CW2), Dev Raj Gupta (CW3) and Kapil Dev (CW4) to prove its case. 5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., stated that he had applied for financing the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-01H-1317. He denied the rest of the case of the complainant. He stated that he had not issued any cheques and he had also not received any notice. He had no liability towards the complainant. He had issued a cheque regarding the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-01H-1317, which vehicle was repossessed by the complainant. He examined Promila Devi (DW1) to prove his defence. 6. The complainant filed an application for additional evidence, which was allowed and some documents were tendered. The statement of the accused was again recorded on 02.09.2024, in which he asserted that the vehicle bearing registration No. HP- 01H-0868 was not registered in his name. He is not the owner of the vehicle, and he has not got it financed from the complainant. 4 2025:HHC:39386 7. Learned Trial Court held that Promila Devi (CW2) brought the record and proved that the vehicle bearing registration number HP-01H-0868 was registered in the name of Ravinder Kumar and was hypothecated in favour of KCC Bank, Didwin Tikkar. She stated in her cross-examination that the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-01H-0868 was never registered in the name of the accused Deepak, and it was also not hypothecated in the complainant’s favour. Her statement corroborated the version of the accused that he is not the registered owner of the vehicle. This falsified the complainant’s case that the accused had got the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-01H-0868 financed by the complainant. Kapil Dev (CW1) admitted in his cross-examination that the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-01H-1317 was financed by the complainant’s company. This also made the defence of the accused highly probable. Statement of Promila Devi (DW1) revealed that the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-01H-0868 was registered in the name of Ravinder Kumar, and it was hypothecated to KCC Bank, Didwin Tikkar. Affidavits were produced on record vide which Ravinder Kumar had sold the vehicle to Deepak Chauhan on 08.06.2017. This affidavit will also not help the complainant because the loan was taken on 29.03.2017 much before the 5 2025:HHC:39386 execution of the affidavit. The evidence of the accused was sufficient to rebut the presumption attached to the cheque that it was issued in discharge of the liability. Hence, the complaint was dismissed. 8. Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court, the complainant has filed the present application seeking leave to appeal. It is asserted that the learned Trial Court misread the documents on record. The accused had borrowed ₹4,46,100/- from the complainant and had agreed to repay the amount with interest. This fact was duly proved by the statement of Kapil Dev (CW1). The accused admitted his signature on the cheque, and a presumption would arise that it was issued for consideration to discharge the liability. The evidence of the accused was insufficient to rebut the presumption. Learned Trial Court erred in holding otherwise. Therefore, it was prayed that the present application be allowed and the leave to appeal be granted to the complainant. 9. Mr. Sanjay Dalmia, learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant, submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in dismissing the complaint. It was duly proved on record that 6 2025:HHC:39386 the vehicle was financed by the complainant. Dev Raj Gupta (CW3), Manager, KCC Bank, proved that the payment was made on behalf of Ravinder Kumar by the complainant. No objection certificate was issued by the bank in his name. This proved that the vehicle was financed by the complainant. Learned Trial Court ignored this vital evidence. Therefore, he prayed that the present application be allowed and leave to appeal be granted. 10. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the record carefully. 11. Kapil Dev (CW1) stated in his affidavit that the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-01H-0868 was got financed by the accused Deepak Kumar for ₹4,46,100/-. This version was not proved by the evidence on record. 12. Promila Devi (CW2) stated that the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-01H-0868 was registered in the name of Ravinder Kumar. She stated in her cross-examination that the vehicle was never registered in the name of Deepak Kumar. It was also not hypothecated in favour of the complainant. The statement of Promila Devi falsifies the case of the complainant. If the vehicle was not registered in the name of the accused, there was no 7 2025:HHC:39386 justification for the accused to avail a loan on it or for the complainant to advance a loan on the security of a vehicle that is not even registered in the name of the complainant. 13. Dev Raj Gupta (CW3) stated that the letter (Ext.CW3/A) was issued to Shri Ram Transport Finance Company Ltd. by KCC Bank. This letter mentions that the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-01H-0868 was taken on loan by Ravinder Kumar. Complainant was advised to transfer ₹2,31,573/- to the branch as per the telephonic conversation between the bank and the complainant. 14. The statement of this witness and the document produced by him also do not show that the loan was taken by the accused Deepak Kumar; rather, it appears that the vehicle was registered in the name of Ravinder Kumar and the loan was advanced to him. Therefore, the bank advised the complainant to transfer the amount on behalf of Ravinder Kumar to the bank. Thus, the testimony of Dev Raj Gupta (CW3) and the documents produced by him do not establish that the accused had taken a loan against the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-01H-0868. 15. Kapil Dev (CW1) stated that the vehicle bearing registration No. HP 01H-0868 was financed by KCC Bank, Didwin 8 2025:HHC:39386 Tikkar. It was purchased by Deepak Chauhan, s/o Bakshi Chand and its registration number was changed to HP-02H-0411. This vehicle was never financed by the complainant. The statement of this witness also does not show the connection of the accused to the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-01H-0868. 16. Kapil Dev (CW4) admitted in his cross-examination that the accused had got a vehicle bearing registration No. HP-01H-1317 financed. Learned Trial Court had rightly held that this statement supported the version of the defence that he had got another vehicle financed and not the vehicle bearing registration No. HP 01H-0868. 17. Thus, the evidence on record failed to establish that the claim of the complainant that the accused had got the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-01H-0868 was not proved before the Court. Therefore, the learned Trial Court had rightly held that the issuance of the cheque by the accused towards the liability of the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-01H-0868 would not amount to a legally enforceable debt/liability. This was a reasonable view that could have been taken based on the evidence placed before the learned Trial Court. This Court will not interfere with the 9 2025:HHC:39386 reasonable view of the learned Trial Court, even if another view is possible. 18. No other point was urged. 19. In view of the above, the present application fails, and the same is dismissed. Cr. Appeal (ST) No.5607 of 2025 Since the application seeking leave to appeal filed by the applicant/appellant has been dismissed; therefore, the present ap- peal is dismissed as having become infructuous. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 21st November, 2025 (Nikita)