Dismissed

Rajender v. Krishan Kumar

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Aug 2013CRM-A/411/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a Special Leave Application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. filed by a complainant challenging an order of acquittal. The Court held that the applicant failed to prove he had the money for the cheque and that the legal notice was silent on the required affidavit execution underlying Section 138 NI Act offences, thus the impugned judgmen

What did the court decide?

The application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. is dismissed as it is without merit.

Rajender Vs Krishan Kumar — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Criminal Misc. No.A-411-MA of 2013 Date of Decision : August 21, 2013

Rajender

....Applicant

Versus

Krishan Kumar

.....Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Jainainder Saini, Advocate

¶9

T.P.S. Mann, J.

¶10

The present application under Section 378 (4) Cr.P.C. has been filed by the complainant for challenging the judgment dated 17.4.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Hisar, whereby complaint filed by him against the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was dismissed.

¶11

Having heard counsel for the applicant and going through the impugned judgment of acquittal, this Court finds that the complainant-applicant could not establish that he was in a position to gave a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the accused respondent for which the latter had issued the cheque which was dishonoured on 27.11.2008 on the ground of insufficiency of funds.

¶12

According to the applicant, cash amounting to Rs.50,000/- was lying at his house and when the same was

¶13

Satish Kumar 2013.08.27 09:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶14

Criminal Misc. No.A-411-MA of 2013 -2-

¶15

advanced to the accused, the latter executed an affidavit. However, no such affidavit has been brought on record. Even the legal notice Ex.P4 and the complaint were silent about the execution of the affidavit. Further, according to the applicant, the amount was advanced in the presence of Dev Raj but said Dev Raj was also not examined by the applicant as his witness. On the other hand, the accused had been able to show that he had never issued the cheque in question to the applicant. Instead, he had given the same to Smt.Beena @ Veena for settlement of the dispute in a Panchayat convened with regard to some other matter. It was admitted by the applicant that he knew Smt. Beena @ Veena.

¶16

In view of the above, no ground is made out for the grant of special leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal.

¶17

The application is without any merit and, therefore, dismissed.

¶18

August 21, 2013 satish

¶19

( T.P.S. MANN ) JUDGE

¶20

Satish Kumar 2013.08.27 09:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Rajender v. Krishan Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajender v. Krishan Kumar

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

Aabhas Dalmia Vs Director of Revenue Intelligence

Gurpreet Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Abnish Singh and Another Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Anoop Kumar Vs Harvinder Singh

Dharampal Vs Debi Lal and Anr.

Tarlok Gupta and Another Vs State of Punjab