TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (1) TMI 1430
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, whereby the accused-respondents were acquitted of the charges. The facts are taken from CRM No.A-325-MA of 2015. It is mainly stated in the application that accompanying appeal is likely to succeed on the grounds taken therein. It is further stated that the judgment of acquittal suffers from material illegality and perversity and is liable to be set aside. It is, therefore, prayed that leave to file appeal be granted to the applicant. As per the record, the complainant Rakesh Verma filed a complaint against M/s Harsha Associates Pvt. Ltd. and other accused under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. As per complainant's version, a huge amount was outstanding ag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w. The perusal of the findings given by learned Magistrate show that these are as per evidence and law and have been given after appreciating the evidence in right perspective. In the cross-examination, the complainant stated to the effect that cheque in question was given to him in pursuance of compromise dated 25.11.2011, which was executed between the VINEET GULATI 2016.02.04 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.A-325-MA of 2015 and connected cases -4- parties. He also proved on record collaboration agreement Ex.D1 and he further stated that a joint venture was started between the complainant and accused, which was started on profit and loss basis whereby the complainant party was to bear 35....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....- is admitted version of both the parties that they jointly pooled in money for a joint business venture whereby Harsha K3C Mall was to be run by parties in Karnal. It is not in dispute that Fun Cinema was started in the said mall but the said Cinema could not run smoothly because of certain objections raised by Fun Cinema. It is also not in dispute that the complainant party invested Rs. 3.26 crores in said joint business venture and in the said business the complainant party was entitled to get 35% profits and also liable to incur 35% losses. The Court also held that it is the version of the complainant party that no accounts were rendered by the accused party to them and cheques were issued only because of compromise dated 25.11.2011, w....