2025:HHC:43248 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 2053 of 2025 Reserved on: 21.11.2025 Date of Decision: 12.12.2025 Naveen Kumar Chandel ....applicant/appellant Versus Deepak .... non-applicant/Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the applicant/appellant : Mr. Divya Rajta, Advocate. For the non-applicant/ Respondent : Nemo. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The applicant has filed the present application for seeking leave to appeal against the judgment dated 31.05.2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manali, District Kullu, H.P. (learned Trial Court), vide which the respondent (accused before the learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of 1. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 2025:HHC:43248 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act). (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.) 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the complainant filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. It was asserted that the accused had borrowed ₹5,00,000/- from the complainant for his personal needs. He issued a cheque drawn on HDFC Bank , Manali to discharge his liability. The bank dishonoured the cheque with the endorsement ‘drawer’s signatures not as per mandate’. The complainant served a notice upon the accused asking him to repay the amount. The notice was duly served upon the accused, but he failed to repay the money. Hence, the complaint was filed before the learned Trial Court for taking action against the accused 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 Section 138 of the NI Act. 3 2025:HHC:43248 4. The complainant examined himself (CW1) to prove his complaint. 5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., denied the complainant’s case. He stated that the complainant had rented a shop to him by misrepresenting that he (the complainant) was the owner of the shop. Later on, it was found that the shop was owned by one Vijay Sohal. The accused had issued the cheque towards the payment of the rent. However, Vijay Sohal evicted the accused from the shop and dismantled the building in November 2019. He examined Neeraj Sharma (DW1), Rakesh Sharma (DW2) and Vijay Sohal (DW3) to prove his defence. 6. Learned Trial Court held that the plea taken by the accused that he had taken a shop from the complainant on rent was probable. The defence evidence proved the version of the accused. The execution of the agreement was proved on record. The complainant denied that he had entered into any agreement with the accused. This denial made his version doubtful. Hence, the accused was acquitted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. 4 2025:HHC:43248 7. Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court, the complainant has filed the present appeal, asserting that the learned Trial Court had erred in holding that the advancement of the loan was not proved. The accused admitted the issuance of the cheque and his signature over it. Therefore, a presumption would arise under Section 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act that the cheque was issued for consideration to discharge the liability/debt. Learned Trial Court ignored this presumption. The agreement was a sham document and was denied by the complainant. This document was not proved as per the law. Neeraj Sharma failed to produce any record regarding the sale of stamp papers to the complainant. The accused had not taken any legal action to recover the amount paid under the agreement. He did not initiate any proceedings regarding the misuse of the cheque. He did not serve any notice upon the complainant for the return of the cheque. The evidence of the accused was insufficient to rebut the presumption, and the learned Trial Court erred in holding otherwise. Therefore, it was prayed that the present application be allowed and the leave to appeal be granted. 8. Ms Divya Rajta, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in 5 2025:HHC:43248 acquitting the accused. The agreement was not proved as per the law. The accused admitted his signature on the cheque, and the presumption would arise regarding the cheque having been issued for consideration to discharge the liability. The evidence led by the accused was insufficient to rebut the presumption. Learned Trial Court erred in holding otherwise. Therefore, she prayed that the present application be allowed and the leave to appeal be granted to the applicant/appellant. 9. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 10. The complainant admitted in his cross-examination that he had a shop on the first floor of the building of Vijay Sohal. He denied his signature on the agreement. He denied that he had purchased any stamp papers from Neeraj Sharma or entered into an agreement with Deepak. He vacated the shop of Vijay Sohal, located on the first floor, during the COVID-19 lockdown. Vijay had dismantled the building and reconstructed it. 11. The complainant’s statement was falsified by the statement of Neeraj Sharma (DW1), who stated that he had sold the stamp paper (Ext.DW-1/A) to the complainant. He admitted in his 6 2025:HHC:43248 cross-examination that the complainant was not personally known to him. 12. It was submitted that this witness had not produced the record, and his testimony regarding the sale of stamp papers was not believable. This submission is only stated to be rejected. The learned Trial Court found the statement of this witness to be credible and relied upon the same. He was a stamp vendor, and nothing was shown in his cross-examination that he was making a false statement. Therefore, the learned Trial Court could have accepted the testimony of this witness, and it was a reasonable view which does not require any interference in an appeal against acquittal. 13. Rakesh Sharma (DW2) proved an agreement (Ext.DW1/A). He stated that thse complainant rented out a shop to Deepak. Vijay Sohal was the owner of the shop. Deepak paid ₹5,00,000/- to the complainant. Vijay Sohal evicted Deepak in September 2019. He identified his signature on the agreement. 14. The testimony of this witness also corroborates the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. that 7 2025:HHC:43248 he had taken a shop on rent from the complainant, but the original owner, Vijay Sohal, had evicted him. 15. Vijay Kumar (DW3) stated that he had rented a shop to the complainant. He asked the complainant to vacate the shop, who vacated the shop. He constructed a new building in October 2019 by dismantling the old shop. The statement of this witness also corroborates the version of the accused that he was evicted from the shop, the shop was dismantled, and a new building was constructed. 16. Therefore, the defence of the accused was duly proved on record that the cheque was issued towards the rent of the shop. However, the accused was evicted, and his liability to pay rent ceased. The cheque was not proved to have been issued in discharge of the debt/liability. The learned Trial Court had taken a reasonable view while holding that the version of the accused was probable and sufficient to rebut the presumption. Hence, no case for the grant of a leave to appeal is made out. 17. In view of the above, the present application fails, and the same is dismissed. 8 2025:HHC:43248 Cr. A (A-SB)/7307/2025 Since the application to grant leave to appeal has been dismissed, hence the instant appeal is dismissed as having become infructuous. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 12th December, 2025 (Nikita)