Quashed

Tarlochan Singh v. Bachittar Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Apr 2012CRM-M/848/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Punjab and Haryana quashed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and subsequent proceedings. The quashing was granted because the complainant agreed that the complaint filed through an attorney was illegal, with liberty to file a fresh complaint later.

What did the court decide?

The impugned complaint and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed, with liberty to the complainant to file a fresh complaint regarding the same subject matter.

Tarlochan Singh Vs Bachittar Singh — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

Criminal Misc.No.M-848 of 2008

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc.No.M-848 of 2008

¶5

Date of Decision:23.04.2012

¶6

Tarlochan Singh ......Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Bachittar Singh alias Banny ......Respondent

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.

¶10

Present: Mr.Puneet Kansal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr.G.S.Kaura, Advocate, for the respondent.

¶12

¶13

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J.(oral)

¶14

Succinctly, the relevant facts and material, which require to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and oozing out from the record is that, complainant Bachittar Singh alias Banny, respondent(for brevity “the complainant”) filed a criminal complaint (Annexure P-1) through his attorney Santokh Singh Aujla, against the petitioner accused Tarlochan Singh, for the commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

¶15

Taking cognizance of the complaint, the petitioner-accused was summoned to face the trial for the indicated offence.

¶16

Aggrieved by it, the petitioner-accused preferred the present petition, to quash the impugned complaint(Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶17

At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused contended with some amount of vehemence that since, the very institution of the complaint by the complainant through his attorney in the court, was illegal, so, the

¶18

¶19

Criminal Misc.No.M-848 of 2008

¶20

impugned complaint(Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, deserve to be quashed in this respect. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Jimmy Jahangir Madan Versus Bolly Cariyappa Hindley(Dead) by LRs, 2004(4) RCR(Criminal) 1001.

¶21

Faced with the situation, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-complainant has very fairly conceded the legal position and submitted that the complaint(Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, may be quashed with liberty to the complainant, to file a fresh complaint, with regard to the same subject matter(Cheque), without prejudice to his rights, in any manner, in this relevant connection.

¶22

In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is accepted. The impugned complaint(Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed, as prayed for, in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

¶23

Needless to mention that, the complainant would be at liberty, to file a fresh complaint against the petitioner-accused, with regard to the same subject matter(Cheque), which will be decided by the trial Court, in accordance with law.

¶24

April 23, 2012 ( M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR) seema JUDGE

Tarlochan Singh v. Bachittar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tarlochan Singh v. Bachittar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harjinder Singh Dhillon Vs Pb State Electricity Board and Anr.

Sukhwinder Singh Vs Union of India & Anr.

Daljeet Kaur and Anr. Vs Registrar of Marriage , Jalandhar

Tarlochan Singh Vs Bachittar Singh

Tarlochan Singh Vs Bachittar Singh

Harpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.