A Mohali court has acquitted a woman, a resident of Haryana, in a cheque bounce case, holding that the complainant failed to prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt and had suppressed material facts from the court.
Pankaj Kumar, a resident of Mohali, had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, alleging that Rachna borrowed ₹5.25 lakh from him during the Covid-19 period to release gold allegedly pledged with Muthoot Finance. He claimed she later issued two cheques worth ₹3.90 lakh, which were dishonoured due to “drawer’s signature differs”.
However, during an intense and detailed cross-examination, the complainant admitted that only ₹1.19 lakh was transferred to Rachna through bank transactions and that he had no documentary proof of any additional cash payments. The court noted that despite repeated opportunities, the complainant failed to produce evidence of the alleged cash transactions or any written agreement.
The defence led by advocate Tejwinder Singh Gill dismantled the complainant’s case through rigorous and pointed cross-examination. Rachna demonstrated through bank statements that she had already returned the entire ₹1.19 lakh. The court also observed glaring contradictions in the complainant’s testimony regarding the alleged cash payments, including inconsistent claims about where and in whose presence the money was allegedly handed over.
The complainant admitted that he neither verified any documents from Muthoot Finance nor disclosed the alleged loan in his income tax returns. The court termed the story of releasing pledged gold as highly improbable and unsubstantiated.
{{/usCountry}}The complainant admitted that he neither verified any documents from Muthoot Finance nor disclosed the alleged loan in his income tax returns. The court termed the story of releasing pledged gold as highly improbable and unsubstantiated.
{{/usCountry}}The court held that Rachna had successfully rebutted the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act through effective cross-examination and documentary evidence. Calling the complaint concocted, unreliable, and legally unsustainable, the court dismissed the case and acquitted the accused.