Allowed¶19

Durga Rani v. Satish Goyal

Punjab & Haryana HC12 May 2025CRM-A/804/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRM-A-804-MA-2014, decided 12.05.2025, High Court of Punjab and Haryana (Sandeep Moudgil, J.). Leave to appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC allowed against acquittal (27.01.2014, JMIC Faridabad) in Section 138 NI Act cheque-dishonour complaint; ground: respondent/DW1 admitted bank balance of Rs.27,774/- against cheque of Rs.10,00,000/-, indicating insufficient funds and stop payment. Parties: Dugra Rani through LRs (applicant, counsel Rajesh Arora) v. Satish Goyal (respondent, counsel Sukhandeep Singh).

What did the court decide?

Leave to file appeal against the acquittal granted; Registry directed to number the appeal and list it as per roster. ¶19

Durga Rani Vs Satish Goyal — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

¶3

CRM-A-804-MA-2014 Decided on 12.05.2025 ****

¶4

Dugra Rani through LRs ... Applicant

¶5

VS.

¶6

Satish Goyal ... Respondent

¶7

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL ****

¶9

Present: Mr. Rajesh Arora, Advocate for the applicant

¶10

Mr. Sukhandeep Singh, Advocate for the respondent

¶11

¶12

Sandeep Moudgil, J.

¶13

(1). This application has been filed under Section 378(4) CrPC for grant of leave to file appeal against the judgment dated 27.01.2014 passed by JMIC, Faridabad vide which respondent No.1 has been acquitted from the charges framed against him in a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short, the NI Act).

¶14

(2). Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the present application for grant of leave to file appeal against the judgment dated 27.01.2014 passed by JMIC, Faridabad deserves to be accepted on the ground that the trial court has failed to consider the fact that the respondent who appeared as DW1 in his cross-examination has admitted that on 31.05.2011, he had bank balance of Rs.27,774/- whereas the cheque in question is of Rs.10,00,000/- and as such, this material admission is best evidence to suggest that the respondent was not having sufficient balance in his bank account to clear the cheque in question and as such, he instructed the bank to stop payment just to hide the truth of non-availability of sufficient funds in his account.

¶15

V VISHAL SHONKAR 2025.06.18 11:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

CRM-A-804-MA-2014

¶17

- 2 -

¶18

(3). Having considered this factual aspect of the matter, this Court of the considered view that prima facie there is material in the contention raised by the applicant and as such, the application is liable to be accepted.

¶19

(4). Accordingly, this application under Section 378(4) CrPC for grnat of leave to file appeal against the judgment dated 27.01.2014 is accepted and the Registry is directed to number the appeal and list the same as per roster.

¶20

(5). Ordered accordingly.

¶21

12.05.2025

¶22

V.Vishal

¶23

1. Whether speaking/reasoned?

¶24

2. Whether reportable?

¶25

(Sandeep Moudgil) Judge