CRL.RP/1037/2025 of M/S. MAAN SAROVAR PROPERTIES DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED Vs M/S LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED on 27 July 2026

ORAL ORDER

This revision petition is filed against the judgment dated 12.04.2022 passed in C.C.No.53418/2018 and also against the judgment dated 18.03.2025 passed in Crl.A.No.25183/2022.

2. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.

3. The factual matrix of case of the complainant before the Trial Court is that the accused Nos.2 and 3 are the Directors of accused No.1 company and manages the day-to-

HC-KAR

day affairs of the company and entered into an agreement of lease dated 29.11.2013 with the complainant and the complainant paid a sum of Rs.36 lakh to the accused towards security deposit which shall be refunded by the accused upon expiry of lease period. Due to delay and failure to handover the leased premises within time, the agreement was cancelled and upon cancellation, accused towards refund of the lease amount, issued the cheques for a sum of Rs.12 lakh and Rs.24 lakh. The complainant presented the said cheques for encashment but the same were returned with an endorsement ‘account closes’. Thereafter, the complainant issued the notice and the same was served on the accused but accused did not repay the amount. Hence, filed the complaint and cognizance was taken and accused were secured and they did not plead guilty and claims the trial.

4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant himself examined as PW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P21. On the other hand, accused No.2 examined as DW1 and not produced any documents. The Trial Court taken note of the transaction between the parties and

HC-KAR

also lease agreement at Ex.P13 and also the settlement agreement at Ex.P16 and held that there is a contract between the parties and three separate cases have been filed by the complainant against the accused for the recovery of the amount. Hence, there cannot be any doubt that the amount covered under Ex.P1 and P2 - cheques are in the respect of the liability which was undertaken by DW1 and categorical admission was given by DW1 in this regard during the course of cross-examination. Thus, Trial Court considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, convicted and sentenced the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act.

5. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred by the accused persons before the Appellate Court. Appellate Court also having re-appreciated both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, particularly taking into the documents of Ex.P13 and P16 held that there is a agreement between the parties and accused has admitted his liability towards the complainant and not rebutted

HC-KAR

the case of the complainant. Hence, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.

6. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding of both the Courts, the present revision petition is filed before this Court.

7. The counsel for the petitioners would vehemently contend that both the Courts have committed an error in considering the defence of the petitioners and not properly appreciated the material available on record. Hence, interference of this Court is required.

8. Having heard the counsel for the petitioners and also on perusal of the material on record, it discloses that the parties have entered into an agreement of lease and as per the agreement, accused failed to fulfill their part of contract and they have agreed to refund the amount. But three separate cases have filed by the complainant against the accused for recovery of amount. Hence, there cannot be any doubt that the amount recovered under Ex.P1 and P2 are legally enforceable debts. There is no rebuttal evidence against the case of the

HC-KAR

complainant. The Appellate Court also re-appreciated the material on record and comes to the conclusion that the Trial Court has not committed any error in convicting the accused. When materials are considered by the Trial Court and Appellate Court, the question of entertaining the revision petition does not arise since, the orders of both the Courts do not suffers from its legality and correctness when there is a clear admission on the part of DW1 with regard to the transaction and also the issuance of Ex.P1 and P2. Under such circumstances, I do not find any grounds to entertain the revision petition. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed.

9. In view of dismissal of the main petition, I.A. if any, does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.

Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

SN