Dismissed¶7

Virender Chauhan v. State of Haryana and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC29 May 2026CRR/1292/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act; enhancement of sentence and compensation; criminal revision by complainant; dismissal for non-prosecution; petitioner absent; CRR-684-2026; sentence reduced to period already undergone; 114 days incarceration; compensation Rs. 40,000; Palwal; Punjab and Haryana High Court; Anoop Chitkara, J.

What did the court decide?

As none appeared on behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner appears to be no longer interested in pursuing the present petition. ¶6

Virender Chauhan Vs State of Haryana and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

210 CRR-1292-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 29.05.2026 Virender Chauhan ......... Pe��oner Versus State of Haryana and another ......... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present None for the pe��oner. Mr. Shiva Khurmi, D.A.G., Haryana ****

¶3

ANOOP CHITKARA, J. (ORAL)

¶4

The present pe��on has been filed against the judgment of convic�on and order of sentence dated 29.07.2024 and 31.07.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Palwal, and the judgment dated 27.01.2026 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Palwal, whereby respondent No. 2 has been held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Sec�on 138 of the Nego�able Instruments Act. However, the sentence awarded to respondent No. 2 is inadequate. Therefore, the same is liable to be modified by enhancing the compensa�on awarded to the pe��oner as well as the sentence imposed upon respondent No. 2 for the commission of the offence punishable under Sec�on 138 of the Nego�able Instruments Act.

¶5

State counsel submits that the criminal revision pe��on filed by respondent No. 2, Gulab Singh, has already been decided by this Court vide judgment dated 20.05.2026 passed in CRR-684-2026, whereby the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone, considering that the convict had undergone incarcera�on for 114 days and the compensa�on amount was also enhanced to Rs. 40,000/-.

¶6

Since none has appeared on behalf of the pe��oner, therefore, it appears the pe��oner is no more interested to pursue the present pe��on.

¶7

Given above, the applica�on for condona�on of delay as well as main pe��on stands dismissed for non-prosecu�on. All pending miscellaneous applica�ons, if any, stand disposed of.

¶8

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

¶9

29.05.2026/ Jyo�-II Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: No.

¶10

JYOTI 2026.05.29 17:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

Virender Chauhan v. State of Haryana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virender Chauhan v. State of Haryana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Daya Kishan Vs the Kaithal District Primary Co-Operative Agricultural and Rural Development Kaithal Branc

Gurdip Singh Vs Amit Kumar Mittal and Anr.

Milakh Raj Vs Som Nath and Anr.

Randhir Singh Vs Vakil Ram

Aash Mohammed Vs Vinod Kumar and Anr.

Krishan Kaushik Vs State of Haryana