Hardeep Singh Vs Surinder Singh — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Hardeep Singh Vs Surinder Singh — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal/petition allowed: impugned judgment dated 07.02.2024 of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panchkula set aside; complaint under Section 138 NI Act read with Section 420 IPC dismissed for non-prosecution restored; parties to appear before the trial Court on 22.12.2025; all pending applications disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment dated 07.02.2024 of the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panchkula, dismissing the complainant's complaint under Section 138 NI Act read with Section 420 IPC for non-prosecution and acquitting the respondent, should be set aside and the complaint restored. +1 more

Court's answer

Considering the concessions made by counsel for the complainant (including that no application would be filed for depositing 20% of the cheque amount under Section 143-A NI Act), to which counsel for the accused did not seriously oppose restoration, the impugned order dated 07.02.2024 is set aside, the complaint is restored, and the parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 22.12.2025.

Ratio / Principle

The grounds for dismissal of the complaint in default were defective because, although the complainant had not appeared, no message was sent to the Bar room to communicate with the counsel for the complainant, who had been appearing for him (as shown by the earlier order dated 29.01.2018).

Key takeaways

It is desirable that whenever counsel does not appear, at least a message is sent to counsel in the Bar room, so that the matter is not delayed unnecessarily (sentence carried across the page-break attestation line; quoted fragment is pre-break text).obiter¶¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal appeal (CRM-A-566-2024) by complainant Hardeep Singh against the judgment dated 07.02.2024 of the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panchkula, dismissing his complaint under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 read with Section 420 IPC for non-prosecution and acquitting respondent Surinder Singh. Held: the grounds for dismissal in default were defective — although the complainant did not appear, no message was sent to the Bar room to inform his counsel, who had been representing him since at least the order dated 29.01.2018. Upon the appellant's concession that no application would be filed for depositing 20% of the cheque amount in terms of Section 143-A NI Act, counsel for the accused did not seriously oppose restoration. Impugned order set aside; complaint restored; parties directed to appear before the trial Court on 22.12.2025; pending applications disposed of. Obiter: it is desirable that whenever counsel does not appear, at least a message be sent to counsel in the Bar room so that the matter is not delayed unnecessarily.

207

IN THE COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-A-566-2024

Date of Decision: 11.12.2025

HARDEEP SINGH

....Appellant

Versus

SURINDER SINGH

....Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present: Mr. Gaurav Gogna, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Monu Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Ankur Malik, Advocate for the respondent.

ANOOP CHITKARA, J. (Oral)

Prayer in the present appeal filed by the appellant is directed against the judgment dated 07.02.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panchkula vide which the complaint under Sec+on 138 of Nego+able Instruments Act, 1881 read with Sec+on 420 IPC has been dismissed for non-prosecu+on and respondent has been acqui1ed of the charges levelled against him.

Aggrieved by the dismissal for non-prosecu+on the complainant has come up before this Court. Learned counsel for the respondent put in appearance and opposes the restora+on. To this learned counsel for the appellant submits that the complaint be restored and they shall not file an applica+on for deposi+ng of 20% of cheque amount in terms of Sec+on 143-A of Nego+able Instruments Act. Given such concessions, counsel for the accused also does not seriously oppose the restora+on.

The ground for dismissal in default are defec+ve because no message was sent to the Bar room to inform the counsel for the complainant. A perusal of the impugned order dated 07.02.2024 points out that although the complainant had not appeared but no message was sent to Bar room to communicate to the counsel for the complainant. It is desirable that whenever counsel does not appear then atleast message is sent to counsel in

SHRUTI 2025.12.18 12:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of the document

the Bar room, so that the ma1er is not delayed unnecessary. Earlier order dated 29.01.2018, clearly points out that the complainant was represented by the counsel. As such, it would have been be1er if a message was sent to the counsel who was appearing earlier on his behalf. To this background, considering the concession, made by the counsel for the complainant, the present pe++on is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The complaint is restored. The par+es to appear before the trial Court on 22.12.2025.

Pe++on stands allowed. All pending applica+on(s) if any stands disposed of.

11.12.2025 shru�

	(AN	OOP CHITKARA) JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes/No
Whether reportable	: Yes/No

SHRUTI 2025.12.18 12:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of the document